MEETING SUMMARY
Joint Meeting: Potomac Shared Tributary Strategy and
Potomac TMDL Coordination Workgroups
January 16, 2002
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
The joint meeting of the Shared Potomac Tributary Strategies Workgroup and the Potomac TMDL
Coordination Workgroup was scheduled to address the relationship between the Tributary Strategy
process and the states' regulatory (TMDL) processes in the tidal and non-tidal Potomac River basin.
The meeting was a unique opportunity for state/federal agencies to meet with each other and with local
stakeholder groups to answer questions and identify problems related to how the provisions of the
Chesapeake 2000 agreement will mesh with those of the TMDL process.
The Potomac basin is an excellent place to confront these issues because a) the watershed includes all
the Bay Program signatories (plus West Virginia); b) the river is an interstate boundary, and many
tributaries have interstate watersheds; c) and both Maryland and the District of Columbia have begun
local TMDLs for impairments related to Bay Program concerns (nutrients, sediment, D).
Participants at the meeting included more than 50 individuals from federal agencies, state agencies in
DC, MD, PA, VA and WV, local governments, agriculture, point source permittees, environmental
groups, and consultants.

-------
Agenda:
The meeting opened with three presentations intended to explain the Chesapeake Bay Program's
tributary strategy process from 2000 to 2010 and Maryland and the District's current TMDL
programs. Tom Simpson presented the Bay Program process; Bob Summers described MDE's
current plans for Maryland local TMDLs; and Jim Collier described DC's TMDL schedule and
process. Following those presentations, there was a question and answer session, and then a facilitated
discussion in which participants identified potential conflicts between the two programs. At the end of
the facilitated discussion, the participants ranked those potential conflicts, and that ranked list will
provide a starting point for future discussions or action by the states, EPA, and the CBWQSC.
Objective of the Meeting (as presented to the group): To clarify the relationship of the Potomac
TMDL programs to the Chesapeake Bay Program driven strategies to reduce nutrients and sediments.
Goals for the Day:
1.	To clarify for stakeholders the schedules and processes of the two programs.
2.	To identify potential conflicts.
3.	To identify opportunities for coordination.
4.	To identify tasks and actions needed to resolve conflicts and to implement improved
coordination.
2

-------
Questions compiled prior to the meeting:
Based on comments received prior to the meeting, a number of questions were compiled and posted at
the meeting for discussion. These address many of the concerns that stakeholders have concerning the
relationship, in the Potomac basin, of the states' list of impaired waterbodies and the Bay Program
driven nutrient and sediment reduction strategies (with answers from MD, DC and the EPA in
italics). Where marked, "Discussion" reflects clarifying comments received subsequent to the meeting.
1. Why develop a TMDL in advance of the Bay Strategies?
Maryland has a 1998 Memorandum of Agreement with EPA that specifies an end date
for all its TMDLs as 2008 and specifies the number of TMDLs to be completed each year.
The lawsuit under which that MO A was drafted was dismissed. Assuming no successful
appeal, there appears to be flexibility for MD to change when, in the overall schedule,
particular TMDLs are completed. EPA emphasized that MD needs to maintain a level of
production with respect to the number of TMDLs per year, especially focusing on
addressing local problems.
DC is addressing TMDLs under a court imposed schedule, which requires completion of
all TMDLs by 2004. This involves apH TMDL (involving nutrients) for the Washington
Channel by 2004. EPA Region 3 indicated that there is no flexibility in the date.
Discussion: In subsequent correspondence, Tom Henry of EPA Region 3 stressed
EPA 's perspective on "flexibility" regarding Maryland's TMDL schedule. While
EPA is prepared to accept flexibility regarding the TMDL schedule, they
emphasized the need to "address local problems as soon as possible
This raises yet another stakeholder concern: the definition of a "local
impairment. " In a recent e-mail to Mr. Henry, Ted Graham suggested that: "I'd
argue that any impairment that is on the mainstem of the Potomac that is related
to multi-state loads is not local. "
In response, Mr. Henry said, "My first reaction to your argument would be that a
local problem is defined by where the problem occurs and not where the causes
come from. As an example only, if DC finds that a DO problem occurs in the
Potomac below the fall line for X number of miles, that's a local problem - a local
problem that may be caused by "non-local" sources. There could be local
impairments but not necessarily local causes to that impairment in SOME cases.
We will delve into this some more and hopefully provide a more detailed
3

-------
discussion of our views on this in the near future. "
With respect to schedule flexibility in the District of Columbia, Mr. Henry
indicated that the DC Consent Decree requires DC to complete the Potomac
TMDL (for pH impairment) by 2004. If DC fails to do so, then EPA must
complete one by 2007. So there is some flexibility in the schedule beyond the
2004 date based on the EPA "backstopping" date of2007.
2. What is the basis for listing mainstem Potomac (tidal or nontidal)?
In Maryland, there are listings for nutrients and sediments on the mainstem Potomac
river, tidal and non-tidal. In DC, the tidal Potomac is listed for pH. There is a possibility
(not yet determined) that the pH impairment is the result of excess algae, which might, in
turn, be the result of excess nutrients. There are listings for nutrients and sediments
based, not on a violation of nutrient standards, but on a presumption that the Potomac
mainstem was delivering loads to downstream impairments that needed to be addressed
in Tributary Strategies. The current 303(d) list for Maryland (reflecting the list adopted
in 1996 and 1998) is based on a presumed contribution to the DO impairment in the
mainstem of the Bay, not on a DO impairment in the Potomac. Maryland is collecting
more data and may add or remove specific impairments in its next 303 (d) list
submission. Maryland's revised draft 303(d) list is scheduled to be releasedfor review in
spring 2002.
3. Will TMDLs for mainstem Potomac (tidal or nontidal) be consistent with Water Quality
Steering Committee loads?
We cannot predict which will be more restrictive: TMDLs for local impairments or
Tributary Strategy load limits. It is possible a TMDL will be more restrictive in one area,
while a Trib. Strategy assigned limit will be more restrictive in another area.
Discussion: This question gets to the heart of one of the potential points of
TMDL-Tributary Strategy conflicts. The possibility of different and therefore
competing load limits and load allocations introduces concerns about how
responsibility for load reductions would be allocated. This is directly linked to
concerns about the definition of "local impairments (See discussion under
Question #1 above.)
4

-------
4. Will the Potomac TMDL and the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model be consistent?
Is it the correct tool?
The WSM was not intended to be used to address small scale impairments and may not be
an appropriate tool in such cases. While planned upgrades in the next version of the
WSM will provide a much smaller segmentation than in the current version of the model,
localized impairments in smaller watersheds may require models that operate at a
smaller scale than the WSM. MDE is working closely with the EPA and the USGS on the
next version of the WSM and plans to use it as a "framework" for it Potomac basin
TMDLs. Where appropriate the upgraded WSM will be used for local TMDLs. Where
finer scale models are required those models will be constructed with design assumptions,
parameters, and inputs that, when scale dup to the WSM level, are consistent with the
WSM. The intent of the teams working on these models is to minimize the potential for
conflicting or competing model results.
5. Is the "Potomac Shared Strategy Workgroup" part of the Bay effort only or Bay and Maryland
efforts?
The Potomac Shared Strategy Workgroup was formed through the Chesapeake Bay
Program's Nutrient Subcommittee. It includes representation from all four states and
the District of Columbia that make up the Potomac watershed. Tom Simpson Chairs
both the workgroup and the subcommittee.
5

-------
Questions not discussed due to time constraints:
Following are the remaining questions that were prepared in advance, but not discussed. As important
as they were, it was felt that, in the interest of time, the discussion should shift to potential sources of
conflict. In general, each one still needs to be addressed and resolved.
6. Is the time-line consistent for mainstem Potomac TMDLs and CBP load allocations?
7. Will mainstem Potomac TMDLs require substantive permit changes before 2011?
8. Will tributary strategies serve as one of the reasonable assurances for any mainstem Potomac
TMDLs?
9. How can Chesapeake Bay technical support assist in mainstem Potomac TMDL?
10. What is the stakeholder involvement in both processes?
11.	How will the Maryland and DC TMDLs deal with allocation of responsibilities to "upstream"
jurisdictional sources?
12.	How will the Potomac watershed model and the Potomac tidal water quality model be useful
for any local, sub-watershed, TMDLs?
13. How will Potomac TMDL models differentiate between overland and in-stream sediment
sources?
14. How can the local governments plan ahead for development and infrastructure when
"everything is subject to change": 303(d) list, schedules, priorities, water quality, strategies, etc.
6

-------
15.	Does the "Bay model" model in-stream tributaries and processes or only the tidal Bay?
16.	When will there be new Bay criteria, what are the parameters?
17.	Related to the "Why develop a TMDL in advance of the Bay strategies?", why can't EPA
agree to actively seek to change the MD/EPA MOU to set 2011 as the deadline for all CBP
water quality criteria-related TMDLs? This three-year extension for some TMDLs doesn't
seem to be a.) unreasonable, or b.) significantly different from the other settlements in Region 3
(per Tom Henry's concerns). It seems that this could be pursued in the WQSC, where EPA is
represented by both Region 3 and CBP.
18.	Chesapeake 2000 states: We have agreed to the goal of improving water quality in the Bay and its
tributaries so that these waters may be removed from the impaired waters list prior to the time when
regulatory mechanisms under Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act would be applied. A tidal
Potomac nutrient TMDL would apply regulatory mechanisms prior to the 2010 date that the
WQSC has adopted as part of its integration process. To most observers, this would directly
conflict with the decision of the Executive Council reflected in the above provision. What is the
basis for MDE's belief that there would be no conflict?
19. What would be the benefits of the regulatory TMDL approach over the non-regulatory
approach called for C2K and the integration process? Would these benefits be sufficient to
outweigh the additional costs, delays, conflict, and litigation that likely would result?
7

-------
Potential Areas of Conflict
The afternoon portion of the meeting focused on identifying potential areas of conflict between TMDLs
and Tributary Strategies. The participants combined the areas of conflict and then prioritized them
through a structured voting process. The resulting prioritized list is in priority order, with the highest
ranked item as number one. These are considered to be those areas that need the most
attention in order to reconcile TMDLs with Tributary Strategies for the tidal Potomac River.
1.	Mainstem tidal/nontidal TMDLs to be completed before 2010 and basic C2K water quality
"Tributary Strategy" commitment process and schedule. Consent orders issued before C2K
and in conflict with the C2K schedule. Preparation of tidal Potomac TMDL for nutrients in
conflict with C2K.
#1 received 31 votes for a score of 201
2.	Multi-jurisdictional allocations. TMDL interstate load allocation vs. equity from one or more of
the jurisdictions (i.e., Who decides on the load limits and the upstream allocations?. Conflict in
recognizing jurisdictions past efforts in load allocation process.
#2 received 30 votes, for a score of 196
3.	Explanation to public and local governments on two different programs, with their own distinct
processes and outcomes, which could have different budget implications, even though they
address the same end point. CB process involves stakeholders where as TMDL process is a
more top-down (public participation vs. public comment) process. Concern about eroding the
stakeholder motivation to participate in the C2K process if the perception is that decisions will
occur in a regulatory (TMDL) program.
#3 received 34 votes for a score of 182
4.	Adequacy of models for TMDL work/conflict between. Model as planning tool vs. allocation
tool. Inconsistency in the CB model as compared to actual conditions, for specific tributaries.
#4 received 32 votes for a score of 158
5. Range of permitting questions including permit variance. How will TMDLs and CB process
8

-------
impact NPDES permitting, includes storm water?
#5 received 22 votes for a score of 133
6.	Regulatory and technical processes as explained today yet local government needs to plan
growth and infrastructure - How? Anticipated growth with meeting TMDL or/and tributary
strategy goals. Lack of integration between land use and development planning and
TMDL/nutrient reduction goals.
#6 received 22votes for a score of 100
7.	Conflict in definition of localized impaired waters.
#7 received 22 votes for a score of 97
8.	Regulatory (TMDL) vs. voluntary (CBP) programs.
#8 received 18 votes for a score of 90
9.	Differences in state water quality standards vs. CBP proposed criteria.
#9 received 13 votes for a score of 68
10.	Can tributary strategies serve as TMDLs implementation plans?
#10 received 15 votes for a score of 65
11.	Listing and delisting process for impaired waters.
#11 received 16 votes for a score of 61
12.	Inconsistencies between TMDL and tributary strategy solutions/ allocations (loadings).
#12 received 13 votes for a score of 61
13.	Integrity and completeness of monitoring data on which loads will be determined.
#13 received 10 votes for a score of 56
14.	Potential funding sources for stakeholders impacted by load allocations.
9

-------
#14 received 12 votes for a score of 52
15.	UAA - potential conflict.
#15 received 8 votes for a score of 33
16.	Consistent enforcement of any limits that come out of CB driven effort (between states).
#16 received 7 votes for a score of 28
17.	Future: nutrient criteria in free flowing sections (2004).
#17 received 6 votes for a score of 18
18.	Equity of allocation vs. ability of parties to pay.
#18 received 0 votes for a score of 0
19.	Goals/ Loads? Allocation for both processes need further definition.
#19 received 0 votes for a score of 0
20.	Due to limits of technology will need to revisit goals again - moving target.
#20 received 0 votes for a score of 0
21.	Possible conflict between phosphorus based limits/ requirements for mainstem nontidal
Potomac and ability to achieve in-stream reduction of nitrogen to reach estuary.
#21 received 0 votes for a score of 0
10

-------