An Allocation Process for the Chesapeake Bay March 26, 2002 What we are trying to achieve? To recommend a process to the Water Quality steering committee to make allocations of nutrients and sediments to each of the 9 major Bay Basins and 17 Basin- States. We suggest that we will do this in 2 steps. That is, we will first focus on allocating among the 9 major tributaries. Once we have an idea of how the Steering Committee would like to allocate among the 9 major tributaries we would then work on a process for the states to use in allocating the tributary allocations among the state jurisdictions. How does this effort interface with the Standards setting/Use Attainability Assessment? Normally, allocations are developed based upon known water quality standards using water quality model studies. In this case, the allocation process and the allocations themselves will be developed concurrent with the water quality standards. Furthermore, to support the designated uses and standards that are being developed for the Bay, a Use Attainability Assessment (UAA) is being developed. This UAA will assess the natural impacts on water quality as well as look at the technological and economic feasability of the selected standard. Since the standards setting process, including the UAA, is concurrent with the development of the Allocation process, there will need for much coordination and feedback between these two efforts. All of these processes will inform each other and in the end should result in allocations and water quality standards that are supportable based on the UAA. For further discussion of how these and other efforts of the Bay interrelate refer to the schedule and schematic of the numerous actions leading to the development and implementation of allocations in the Bay. Who are the players? The Water Quality Technical Committee (WQTC)will be the lead in making recommendations to the steering committee. The WQTC will be supplemented with folks with needed expertise like modeling or WQS criteria development. What are the Issues? The allocation process, as described below, will initially focus on identifying loadings in each tributary that are necessary to achieve water quality standards within that tributary. These 'baseline' allocations, necessary to protect the tidal fresh portions of the tributary , will then be further reduced where necessary to protect the remainder of the tidal portion of the tributary and the Chesapeake Bay based on an assessment of which tributaries contribute to the impairment. Thereafter, much of the allocation process deals with the need to achieve equity among the various tributaries and jurisdictions within the Bay. Perceived equity can be an individualistic thing but the primary factors that we need to consider in our allocation process include: • Will credit be given for controls that have already been installed? • Will the burden for reducing pollutants be similar between point and non-point sources? • Will the burden for reducing pollutants be similar from one major tributary to another? ------- From one state to another? How do we consider growth in the allocation process? What is an appropriate allocation process? As stated above , we will initially focus on an allocation process for the 9 major tributaries. While there are many ways to allocate loadings, an approach we are recommending is generally described below: We will term the process of allocating the allowable loading to each of the 9 major basins as the cap allocation process. We see the allocation cap process being separated into 3 major pieces for reasons we will describe below: -cap allocation of sediments -cap allocation for nutrients for tribs south of the Potomac River -cap allocation of nutrients in the Potomac River and tribs north Early model tracer runs suggest that sediments in all bay tributaries and nutrients in the tributaries south of the Potomac River express themselves as problems predominantly or entirely within the tributary themselves... that is they have a localized ell cel. For nutrients coming from the Potomac River and tributaries north, the nutrients not only contribute to impairment in the tidal portions of these tributaries but also likely will contribute to impairment in the Bay itself. The proposed allocation process is therefore: 1. The first part of the allocation process will attempt to identify the loading coming over the fall line that will achieve water quality standards in the tidal fresh portions of each of the tributaries (baseline allocation). This loading will be identified for all tributaries. To identify this baseline allocation we will: 2. identify various levels of technology for point and non-point sources. The tributary strategy workgroup is identifying about 4 levels of nutrient/sediment controls. These scenarios start with a beginning level of effort that simulates what is the minimum expected ( year 2000 progress run plus further load reductions anticipated by year 2010 under existing rates of implementation (tier 1)). The highest level of effort will be the 'e-cubed' scenario (everything, everyone, everywhere, tier 4). Two other level of effort scenarios will be developed representing interim levels of effort between the above upper and lower bounds. 3. For setting baseline allocations for all tributaries, the baseline allocation would be the load from that level of effort scenario that is determined to meet water quality standards in the tidal fresh portion of that tributary. Of course, as mentioned earlier, the water quality standards will be based in part on a UAA that will identify the technological and economic feasability of the standards. 4. This baseline allocation will need to be further reduced to protect the tributary below the tidal fresh and the Bay itself. For allocating sediments (for all tributaries) and for nutrients (for tributaries south of the Potomac River) further refinements to this baseline allocation may only need to consider the effect from sources within the tributaiy itself since these tribs appear to have only localized effects for these pollutants. 5. Lewi s wi 11 run s ome tracer m ode 1 runs for s ediments and nutrients t o verify that on ly ------- localized effects result in the tribs identified above. Previous model runs have suggested that this localized effect is true. 6. For nutrients in the Potomac River and other tributaries north, there is influence of the nutrient load of these tributaries on other tributaries in the Bay and on the Bay itself. So for these tributaries, the allocation process is more complex and consequently there is a need for developing a process for identifying appropriate loading caps among these northern tributaries. 7. For these tributaries, the allocation process will be iterative. That is, we will conduct modeling analysis and based on the modeling results suggest appropriate further steps. 8. To start this allocation process, we will model the resulting Bay water quality conditions resulting from all tribs being at their baseline allocation levels. If additional controls are needed beyond these baseline allocation levels, we will explore ways to show the relative contributions of each of the tributaries to the remaining impairment in the Bay, after the baseline allocation loads are applied. 9. This analysis of relative contributions from each tributary to the impairments in the Bay along with the result s of the UAA should be helpful in identifying final allocations for nutrients for the Potomac River and tributaries north. Beyond the Allocation Caps to the major tribs/jurisdictions The process described above is only intended as a process that will yield allocation caps to the major tributaries and jurisdictions. It is likely that as the allocations are further broken down to the non-point source category level and the individual point source level, that another process with other considerations/criteria will be appropirale. This process above is in no way intended to restrict the way that the allocations could further be broken down to the individual source level. Schedule of activities to develop Allocations Feb 5- Draft of Tiers 1-3, E3 final from TSWG Feb 11 -TSWG approves E3 output from WSM for WQM input. WSM output goes to states for review Feb 15 -UAA team define scenario for minimal uses (based on 2000 progress run or BAT for point sources and cost effective and reasonable BMP's for non-point sources) i Feb 15- Obtain E3 scenario from the tributary work group (modelling group) Feb 21 -Get modeling (trib/jurisdiction loading) results from watershed model for numerous scenarios including -2000 run, no BMPs -2010 run, no BMPs -E3 -2000 baseline -minimal use scenario ( If different from 2000 baseline) Mar 14 -WQTWG meet to discuss watershed modeling results, define additional data needs, ------- identify conclusions, possible allocation scenarios. 2,8 Mar 20 -Tributary team complete task of defining all level of effort scenarios, provide to modelers. Modeling team will initiate WQ model for these tiers starting with level 3 then to level 2 , etc. April 14- WQ model results in for E3 and tier 3 April 23/24- Meeting of WQTWG & UAA & modeling teams to review WQ model and Watershed model results, agree on any level of effort scenarios to exclude from further assessment and ID which scenarios need further assessment. Develop the unified 'story line' for the WQSC meeting. Apr 30-Mayl WQSC meeting June- Based on input from WQSC and additional model results, develop draft allocations for 9 major tributaries. August -Develop draft allocations to jurisdictions by 9 major tributaries. Sept- Develop final allocations for 9 major tributaries, by jurisdiction. ------- |