Chesapeake Bay Program Reevaluation Technical Workgroup Meeting October 25, 2007 Draft SUMMARY OF DECISIONS, ACTIONS AND ISSUES Welcome, Introductions, and Review of the Day Sue McDowell from EPA Region 3 is the chair of the reconvened Reevaluation Technical Workgroup. Sue was asked to take the position a few months ago to lead the way into a series of TMDLs for the Bay. She asked the workgroup members for their expectations of the meeting, reviewed the agenda and the purpose and goals for the meeting, and briefly discussed the outcome of the October Pl Principals' Staff Committee meeting. Workgroup Members' Expectations for the Meeting To commit not to argue too much. Suggested the workgroup take the template from a group doing the Potomac PCB TMDL, where 15 committed people put in a lot of hard work from the beginning and reached their goal To build on all the good work that's Ixvn done and make sure we're all on the same page at the end of the process. To come out of the meeting with a better idea of what Bay TMDLS would be Ditto to the first 3 expectations To observe the continuity between the various Principals' Staff Committees and Water Quality Steering Committee. To learn the expectations of Maryland with doing the Bay TMDLs. To see how the process gets started because beginnings are really important. To learn and contribute. To leave with better idea of what we're going to do next and have goals and expectations established for next several months. To increase New York's involvement in the process and get to know everyone a little better so that NY's participation is more productive. To watch other colleagues and to not just to adopt TMDLs but from the beginning look for opportunities to implement TMDLs on the ground, and to look for ways for partners to get the job done. To fulfill the roles of modeling coordinator by helping the workgroup in whatever decisions are made and to support decision making with best analysis. To continue to meet the consent decree by completing TMDLs on schedule with a practical and acceptable product. To assist with technical support and assistance. To provide EPA Region 2 input. To become informed and contribute to the process. To learn and keep aware of things and provide input. To carry out the meeting goals listed on the agenda. ------- Meeting Purpose and Goals The purpose of the meeting is to reconvene the Chesapeake Bay Reevaluation Technical Workgroup. The workgroup will review a range of topics to discuss with the goal of resolving these issues, making decisions and/or formulating recommendations for consideration by the WQSC. This meeting will set the workgroup up for subsequent meetings. A group met a few times in 2006 and outlined TMDL issues that need to be resolved. The reconvened Reevaluation Technical Workgroup is picking up from that. The meeting goals can be found on the agenda. The agenda is about spending time coming up with procedures and rules for working together. The scope and schedule/timeline for the Bay TMIM.s will be reviewed and agreed upon. Past decisions will be reviewed and agreed upon, and the workgroup will lay out what issues need to yet be resolved. Outcome of Principals' Staff Committee Meeting The Principals' Staff Committee met on October Pl and reviewed the prepared TMDLs briefing paper. The principles that the PSC agreed to are listed on the handout that can be accessed at: http://www.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/WQTWG 10-25- 07 Handout 5 9098.pdf. Pat Buckley, PA DEP, noted that it is important for PA that principles embraced "do no harm" so that they don't slow down implementation progress. PA expressed an interest in hearing about the possibility of an implementation workgroup. This discussion will take place at the Water Quality Steering Committee level. Workgroup Guidelines: Process Guidelines, Ground Rules, Roles and Responsibilities Workgroup members' roles and responsibilities are listed on a handout which can be found at: http://www.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/WQTWG 10-25- 07 Handout 7 0008 pdf. Discussion General Roles and Responsibilities Nauth Panday, MDE, suggested an addition to the general ground rules of the workgroup. He would like the membership of this group to be clearly defined as technical representatives. Others may come as observers but should let the technical workgroup do their work. o Pat Buckley commented that her role is to ensure continuity with what her management has agreed to, so she will feel compelled to comment if necessary. o The workgroup members stressed the necessity of maintaining good communication up and down the chain of management, especially before and ------- after each meeting. If workgroup members' management have particular concerns, members can bring them to the next meeting. Pat Buckley added that meetings should be held at locations with good conference phone capabilities and at locations that are favorable to most workgroup members. DECISION: The Reevaluation Technical Workgroup agreed with the handout's listed workgroup roles, responsibilities, ground rules, and decision-making protocols. The workgroup also agreed that the workgroup membership be clearly defined as technical representatives, inviting others to observe meetings but not participate. In addition, the members decided that meetings should be held at a location agreed to by the workgroup that has adequate conference call capabilities. EPA Roles and Responsibilities Mike Haire, EPA, added that EPA committed to providing monetary resources to assist in the modeling effort. Rich Batiuk added that EPA can also provide guidance and expertise 011 legality issues. o Nauth Panday added to Rich's comments 1hi.1i slates must be involved and comfortable with EPA's legal decisions DECISION: The workgroup agreed on the listed roles and responsibilities for the EPA. They added that the EPA will provide monetary resources to assist in the modeling effort and will provide guidance and expertise on legality issues with state involvement and agreement. State Roles and Responsibilities Nauth Panday added that states can share past experiences with TMDLs. DECISION: The workgroup agreed on the listed state roles and responsibilities and added that states will share past experiences with TMDLs. Meeting (iround Rides DECISION: The workgroup agreed on the listed ground rules. Workgroup Decision-making DECISIONS: Some decisions may not require consensus, and those decisions will be pointed out. Specific decisions, such as for the model, will go directly from this workgroup to implementation. Decisions may be re-opened as new information arises that better informs our management. We will follow an iterative process to adapt to this new information. Decisions may be re-opened based on Water Quality Steering Committee concern. Decision-making needs will be framed in the urgency of the situation. The workgroup needs to consider that there are tidal and non-tidal states. These states will have different issues and perspectives. ------- If a vote is necessary, each jurisdiction receives one vote. More serious issues may need to be taken up to the Water Quality Steering Committee. DECISION: The workgroup agreed to operate by consensus. If consensus cannot be met, the minority opinion will be documented in the meeting summary and the majority opinion will proceed. If it comes down to a vote, each jurisdiction will have one vote. Review of Scope, Schedule and Timeline The proposed TMDL timeline can be found at: http://www.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendarAVQTWG 1Q-25- 07 Handout 6 9098.pdf. Lewis Linker, EPA/CBPO, pointed out that there is documentation of all of the models listed on the chart. Documentation of the Airshed Model w ould be most effectively handled in the Phase 5 Watershed Model report. Mike Haire commented that it may be reasonable to provide the status of the impairments on a regular basis, to report progress to date on implementation. o Rich Batiuk noted that the Water Quality Steering Committee is receiving updates from the jurisdictions on their draft 303(d) lists. Nauth Panday pointed out that some of the TMDL report can be done in advance, such as modeling documentation and water quality standards. o Clint Boschen, Tetra Tech, will be providing an outline to Sue McDowell next week that will demonstrate what can be done in advance. o We can have many components lined up by the spring and summer of next year, allowing 2009 as time to review the information. ACTION: Via email, the workgroup will discuss what part of the TMDL documentation can be done in advance. Nauth Panday mentioned that the timeline does not mention how we are going to meet water quality standards. c Rich Eskin, MDE, added that as we compare the model output, we need to com pare it to what the water quality standards require. It should be an explicitly listed task. When we look at the model output of the loads we're estimating, how do we show we're in compliance with the standards? Do we do it in each cell or each segment? o Mike Haire suggested that the timeline include a line that states when we will resolve how water quality standards will be assessed with the output of the model. Kenn Pattison, PA DEP, stated that Pennsylvania would be uncomfortable revising their Tributary Strategy until they're assured that the TMDL is final and their allocations are final. o Kenn added that we need to define what protocols we are going to set for the state's allocations. How do we evaluate if we have reached our allocation? The Bay doesn't change as rapidly as surface water changes. ------- o Rich Eskin suggested that the public review step in the schedule be moved to 2011. He added that the allocation evaluation process as Kenn mentioned is post-TMDL. Rich Eskin suggested adding to the timeline a bullet on the approval and running of management scenarios, to explicitly state that this task will occur. The task will involve selecting management scenarios and looking at and discussing the results of the scenarios. West Virginia noted that input from the modeling subcommittee is crucial to understand their status and our ability to make changes. Rich Eskin pointed out that because this is a formal TMDL there may be additional steps that were previously needed in past TMDLs. Rich Batiuk suggested that the Bay Program can provide a sense of when certain information will be available, such as model outputs, to match that up with the states' TMDL efforts. Lewis Linker suggested that states provide a checklist of their I'M 1)1. development status. DECISION: The workgroup agreed to the suggested liincline, noting the caveats below. DECISION: The workgroup agreed that the timeline will include a line that states when we will resolve how water quality standards will be assessed with the output of the model. DECISION: The workgroup agreed that Tributary Strategies will be revised in 2011, after the TMDL is final. DECISION: The workgroup decided to add an item to the timeline that explicitly states that the workgroup will select management scenarios to run and discuss the results. ACTION: The next workgroup meeting will include a discussion on the status of the modeling efforts. Members are also welcome to participate in the Water Quality Steering Committee's November 19 conference call that will focus on the model. ACTION: EIJA Region 3 will update the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Timeline based on the workgroup's decisions and circulate for comment. Review of Previous Agreements The previously made agreements by the Water Quality Steering Committee are listed under Issues 1 through 5 on the June 7-8, 2006 Water Quality Steering Committee meeting summary: http://www.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendarAVQTWG 10-25- 07 Handout 4 9098.pdf. The previously made decisions by the Principals' Staff Committee at its October 1, 2007 meeting are listed on the briefing paper at: http://www.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/WQTWG 10-25- 07 Handout 5 9098.pdf. ------- Bill Brown and Pat Buckley, PA DEP, were not comfortable with noting that the PSC decided that jurisdictions' suballocations would become part of the overall Bay watershed TMDL reports. Bill Brown pointed out that we need to be careful how to allow states to handle their own public participation process which would leave states vulnerable to the courts rather than the EPA. The workgroup will discuss this issue further to ensure the previous agreements make sense. The EPA Internal Advisory Group agreed that the Bay watershed TMDLs should be completed by May 2011. EPA plans to allocate to the listed segments. This issue will be further discussed by the workgroup. New York questioned how their unimpaired waters and i 111 pk-mentation will be addressed in the TMDLs that are strictly for impaired waters in the Bay, its tidal tributaries, and embayments. This is an issue for further discussion. ACTION: At a future meeting, the workgroup will discuss the previous agreement on state control of their own comments to ensure they make sense, EPA's plans lo allocate to the listed segments, as well as how unimpaired non-lidal waters will be handled in the TMDLs. Review/Revision of Outstanding Issues' I.is! suit! Setting Priorities for Resolution The workgroup reviewed the range of issues that will need to be addressed by the workgroup in the future. This meeting's goal was to: o Decide if the issues are clearly described and if any are connected o Prioritize the issues o Identify information needed to resolve the issues List of Outstanding Issues to be Addressed The following lisls are of previously and newly identified outstanding issues that the workgroup will address throughout the TMDLs process. The bolded items are the issues that the workgroup has identified as high priority. Allocation-related Issues 1) In which impaired waters do we allocate? 2) To which regulated and non-regulated land/water-based sources will we allocate? 3) How do we plan to allocate to sources? Individually? By groups of individual sources? 4) To what scale (how far down) do we allocate the land, water, and air emission- based regulated and non-regulated sources? TMDLs will be developed for the 78 impaired segments, and states then allocate to the impaired segments. o By majority tributary basin or by state? o How diverse do we want the scales to be? o How do we maintain consistency across the jurisdictions? ------- 5) How should we allocate to regulated/non-regulated air emission sources? o What are the different sources of NOx, ammonia, etc.? o Non-regulated sources may fall into load allocations for nonpoint sources. 6) How do tidal water jurisdictions factor in existing local and regional TMDLs? 7) How do we involve local jurisdictions and allocate to MS4s? 8) How do we address reasonable assurance? 8a) How do we build in consideration of local implementation during TMDL development? 8b) How will water quality trading programs be affected? ฆ This is a post-TMDL issue that the workgroup will keep in mind. 8c) How do we evaluate if a jurisdiction has met its cap load allocation, post TMDL attainment? 9) How do we factor in the living resources effect on water quality Scope-related Issues 10) In which impaired waters do we allocate? 11) What set of hydrological years and averaging period, accounting for seasonality and critical conditions, will we use to develop the allocations? 12) What future projection will we use? 2010? 2030? 13) How do we set the ocean boundary condition? 14) How do we treat fluxes between segments? 15) Bay-tidal waters? 16) How many TMDLs are we doing per segment? Modeling-related Issues 17) How do we evaluate water quality standards attainment using the model output? 18) How do we calculate and document the technical basis of a maximum daily load allocation? 19) How do we factor in the living resources effect on water quality? 20) How do we treat lluxes between segments? 21) How do we address margin of safety? 22) How do we address concerns re: Phase 5 CB Watershed Model and nutrient and sediment cap allocations? o A modeling briefing will be done for the workgroup at a future meeting, as well as for the Water Quality Steering Committee on November 19th. Driven by Regulation Issues 23) In which impaired waters do we allocate? 24) How do we evaluate water quality standards attainment using the model output? 25) How do we address margin of safety? 26) How do we address reasonable assurance? 26a) How do we build in consideration of local implementation during TMDL development? 26b) How will water quality trading programs be affected? ฆ This is a post-TMDL issue that the workgroup will keep in mind. ------- 26c) How do we evaluate if a jurisdiction has met its cap load allocation, post TMDL attainment? 27) How do we involve local jurisdictions and allocate to MS4s? 28) If we cannot attain the allocations, are the partners going to reopen the Use Attainability Analysis (UAA)? 29) Public Participation 30) How do we calculate and document the technical basis of a maximum daily load allocation? 31) How many TMDLs are we doing per segment? Identification of Needed Information to Resolve the Issues Needs to Address Scope Issues: Briefing on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model, highlighting differences between Phase 4.3 and Phase 5 Understanding of how the states have listed their tidal waters Clear statement of what the group is asked to decide on Listing of what EPA's TMDL requirements arc Discussion of relevant existing tidal and nonlidal I'M 1)1 s, as appropriate Tetra Tech connection Needs to Address Allocation Issues: Cheat sheet on the model, including land use categories, sources, inputs, scale, etc. Understanding of specific source information that the jurisdictions have provided or could provide in the model and the status Guidance from EPA Focus on sediment Explanation and assessment on how water quality standards were developed and how model was used to develop the standards to reach agreement and determine if refinements are necessary Next Stops The workgroup will be meeting primarily via conference calls. The workgroup's modeling briefing will occur in December. A meeting summary will be developed and shared with the workgroup members. The next meeting will be via conference call on Friday, November 16th from 10:00 AM to noon. A password-protected webpage on the TMDL process will be developed. ACTION: EPA will put out a draft meeting summary that will be distributed to workgroup members for input. ACTION: The workgroup members will review the draft meeting summary and think about refinements to the issues. ------- ACTION: EPA will put out a draft agenda for the next meeting for workgroup review and input. ACTION: EPA will begin to refine the schedule for the next few months. ACTION: In preparation for the next meeting, workgroup members will review the list of issues that need to be addressed and will begin to identify the ones that are close to agreement and can be discussed/resolved via email exchanges in between workgroup teleconferences or meetings. Participants Sue McDowell EPA Region 3 mcdow el 1. susanฎeoa. gov Clint Boschen Tetra Tech cl int.boschenฎtelialcch-ffx. corn Lewis Linker EPA/CBPO lewis.linker(S)epa uo\ Rich Batiuk EPA/CBPO batiuk. richard(S),epa.uo\ Rich Eskin MDE reskin(o>mde. state, md. us Kenn Pattison PA DEP kpatti sonfo),state.pa.us Pat Buckley PA DEP Dbucklev(rt).state.Da.us Nauth Panday MDE npandav@.mde. state, md. us Francoise Brasier EPA HO brasier.francoisefo!eoa.gov Mike Haire EPA HQ haire. mi chael(o>,epa.gov Bill Brown PA DEP willbrownฎstate.pa.us Shera Bender IP A HQ/MDE bender, sherafa),epa.gov Dinorah Dalmasv \II)L ddalmasv(3),mde. state, md. us Shah Nawaz DC DOE shah.nawaz(a),dc. gov Monir Chowdhuiv IX" doi: monir. chowdhurv (S),dc. gov Ed Reilly \Y DEC exreillv(S),gw.dec.state.nv.us Charles Martin \ A DEQ chmartin(3),dea .Virginia, gov Felix Locicero I -PA Region 2 locicero.felixfo),epa.gov Pat Campbell WV DEP DcamDbellfS),wvdep.org Dave Monlali WV DEP dmontali@wvdeD.ora Jim Laine WV DEP jlaine@wvdep.org Hassan Mirsajadi DEDNREC has san. mir sai adi (a), state. de. us Chris Day EPA Region 3 dav. christoDher(a),eDa. gov ------- |