POTOMAC SHARED STRATEGY WORKGROUP
MARCH 21, 2002
MWCOG
HANDOUTS
•	3/21/02 Meeting Agenda
Maryland's Draft 2002 Integrated Water Quality Inventory and 303 (d) List
Maryland's Draft 303 (d) Listings
Shared Potomac Conference Strawman Outline
USDA proposal on "Mid-Atlantic Regional Water Quality Coordination Project"
PARTICIPANTS

Mary Apostolico
mapo stolico @dcr. state. va.us
Tom Basden
tom.basden@mail.wvu.edu
Karl Berger
kberger@mwcog.org
Sheila Besse
sheila.besse@dc.gov
Elaine Dietz
edietz@mde. state, md. us
Mark Dubin
mdubin@state.pa.us
Norm Goulet
ngoulet@novaregion. org
Ted Graham
tgraham@mwcog.org
Kelly Greene
kelly. greene@dc .gov
Jerry Griswold
griswold.jerry@md.nrcs.usda.gov
Carlton Haywood
chay wood@potomac-commission. org
John Kennedy
jmkennedy@deq. state, va.us
Teresa Koon
tkoon@wvsca.org
Brian Rustia
brustia@mwcog. org
Tom Simpson
ts82@umail.umd.edu
Jeff Skelding
j skelding @dnr. state. md. us
Sandra Smith
ssmith@ag. state, wv. us
Lauren Sufleta
lauren. sufleta@dc .gov
Julie Trask
jtrask@chesapeakebay .net
I.	CALL TO ORDER	(Simpson)
The meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m.
II.	REVIEW OF MARYLAND'S DRAFT 303(d) LIST	(Diet/)
The draft 2002 Integrated Water Quality Inventory and 303(d) list is under public review from
February 22, 2002 to April 8, 2002.
The group asked questions on the listing and discussed potential conflicts:
Mainstem Potomac listings for nutrients - While the tributary basin (6 digit) and asterisk
(*) listings appear to have been removed, the entire mainstem and North Branch
Potomac, excluding Frederick County, were listed as 8 digit watersheds.
In what way is this a change from previous listings?
What is the basis for these nutrient listings in both tidal and nontidal reaches?
In the narrative, there is no discussion of the research, data or "standard" used
to determine nutrient impairment. How was a nutrient impairment determined?
Mainstem Potomac listings for sediment - None of the 8 digit reaches were listed for

-------
sediment in 1996. Most are shown as sediment impaired on the draft 2002 list. What
additional data and/or information led to the listing of these reaches for sediment?
Scheduling - We recognize that schedules for TMDL completion are not part of the
303(d) list. However, scheduling is critical to assuring coordination between Bay
Program and TMDL objectives. It appears that most of the nutrient and sediment
impairments are given low priorities. What does this mean in terms of scheduling the
TMDLs and specifically, how can or does it relate to consistency with the 2010 Bay
Program goals?
Tributary Strategies as "reasonable assurance" - Do you anticipate that the new
strategies will be proposed to EPA and others as "reasonable assurance" for achieving
the TMDL? If so, could a water body listed in "attainment status category" 4a or 5 be
moved to a category 4b attainment status based on the presence of Tributary Strategies
that are reasonably projected to achieve the required load?
MDE and EPA Region m "flexibility" discussions - Just an observation regarding the
much discussed "flexibility" in scheduling TMDLs. There is some concern that EPA
Region m is waiting for MDE to request flexibility in scheduling TMDLs to allow
consistency with Bay Program commitments. Simultaneously, there is concern that
MDE is waiting for EPA Region m to approach them regarding flexibility but EPA feels
that they cannot initiate the discussion. The TMDL schedule is such a critical part of
coordination and consistency, it is very important that MDE initiate this discussion with
EPA.
From 1996 and 1998, there are 235 more listings for 2002, predominantly biological. There
are approximately 20 new listings for the Potomac mainstem.
Impairments will be classified into high and low priorities. High priorities will address public
health issues.
The final release date is October 1, 2002.
ACTION ITEM: Tom will draft a letter to MDE by April 8th, noting potential areas of conflict
with the shared strategy effort and observations during the workgroup's discussion.
III. POTOMAC WORKGROUP/TMDL COORDINATION	(Simpson)
The summary from the joint meeting on January 16, 2002 between the Potomac Shared
Strategy Workgroup and the Potomac TMDL group was compiled and distributed. The
potential areas of conflict identified need to be addressed as efforts move forward.
Carlton took the key items from the summary to the February Water Quality Steering
Committee meeting. There is concern not enough attention was paid to this agenda item. It
was suggested that specific examples of coordination opportunities between Tributary
Strategies and TMDLs be brought to the WQSC for discussion, and possible resolution.
The WQSC is supporting an ad hoc group to look at the current schedule of the WQSC. This
2

-------
will address load targets for certain watersheds, how this fits in with the next round of Tributary
Strategies, and will address questions raised at the January 16th Potomac meeting. Carlton is
leading this group. There are scheduling conflicts with MOUs and court orders. Maryland and
DC must move forward with their TMDLs before load targets are set, potentially leading to
discrepancies. It was suggested that EPA be approached to release Maryland's MOUs in
replace of C2K. There needs to be an effort to merge the two.
Non-point sources aren't regulated under permits, therefore how will their voluntary permits be
effected if a TMDL is established? How will TMDLs effect Tributary Strategies and permits in
up-stream jurisdictions?
In conclusion, on fairly large watershed areas, there will be Tributary Strategies and presumably
TMDLs. They have different time schedules and different loading requirements. There is a lot
of uncertainty right now and therefore resistance. Both processes need to be clarified so
decisions by partners can be made.
IV. SHARED POTOMAC CONGRESS	(Berger)
There will be a one-day meeting to bring 125-150 stakeholders from across the Potomac River
basin together to discus the development of the individual jurisdictions' tributary strategies that
will guide the next phase of Chesapeake Bay water quality improvements in the basin.
The meeting will take place on November 20, 2002 at the Holiday Inn in Leesburg, Virginia
(Loudoun County), beginning at 9 a.m.
Each jurisdiction will receive a certain number of invitations, based on population and landuse,
to be distributed to their respective stakeholders. Preliminary allocation is as follows: MD=40,
VA=40, PA=15, WV=15, DC=15, Non-jurisdictional (CBPO/MWCOG)=25. There will be
a registration deadline, so vacancies not filled can be reallocated. States will evaluate
participation after seeing an agenda.
The group discussed a draft agenda.
The meeting should begin with quick presentations of accomplishments, successfully
completed case studies.
Morning topics will focus on: (1) meeting new water quality goals; (2) UAA and Tier
development process; (3) revised Tributary Strategies; (4) data and tools needed for
tributary strategies; (5) sub-basin load allocations among jurisdictions.
Break-out groups will first address the elements of a shared Tributary Strategy. This
information will be compiled, and then stakeholders will be divided geographically to
look at opportunities of working together. The information can be compiled during a
presentation or lunch, and put together as a handout for the second breakout session.
It was suggested that the second break-out groups be asked to reconvene at future
dates to ensure continued coordination and multi-jurisdictional communication.
Lunches can be delivered to the first break-out rooms, to reduce time.
Registration forms will have a check-off for geographical area and interest groups. This
will be used to set up the break-out groups.
Background information should be sent out with the registration confirmation packet, so
3

-------
the meeting can focus more on forward movement and less on education. West
Virginia has never drafted a Tributary Strategy.
Along with the educational packet, it was suggested to hold pre-conference briefings.
This can be done individually in the jurisdictions, or the day prior to the conference.
What is the final product of the conference? Objectives and priorities need to be
clearly defined.
ACTION ITEM: Jurisdictions need to bring their proposed list of participants, so a quick review
can be done of numbers and expertise across stakeholders. Members should also consider others
that should be invited from other jurisdictions.
ACTION ITEM: Karl will draft an agenda based on today's discussions.
ACTION ITEM: Mary will work with her staff to draft an invitation/brochure.
V. EDUCATION PROGRAMS	(All)
Virginia's Environmental Education Initiative can be viewed at www.vanaturallv.com.
There are two small watershed grants in Maryland and Virginia that are used GAP (Global
Action Plan).
The Potomac Watershed Roundtable Committee has an educational component with Channel
4. Marc Aveni is chairing this effort with the CBPO Communications Team. They have linked
a watershed watch with the weather, (http://wxnet4.nbc4.com).
Tom Simpson and Gary Felton, University of Maryland, have submitted a "Md-Atlantic
Regional Water Quality Coordination Project" to the USD A Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service. The project will coordinate water quality educational
programs of seven land grant universities in the states (PA WV, VA, DE, MD) served by EPA
Region m. There is a Potomac and Susquehanna focus. Topic teams will develop integrated
regional educational programs on six specific areas. Twenty-one faculty extension members
will be involved. The notification of approval is expected by June 1.
ACTION ITEM: On June 4th, all members will bring highlights of their respective educational
programs, only concerning urban nutrient information. This will be displayed and viewed during
lunch. Please bring sign-up sheets, so copies can be distributed at a later date. Other topic areas
will be brought in at future meetings.
V. ADJOURNMENT	(Simpson)
The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m. The next meeting will be held on June 4th at MWCOG in the
3rd floor Board Room.
4

-------