Chesapeake Bay Program Reevaluation Technical Workgroup Conference Call June 5, 2008 SUMMARY OF DECISIONS, ACTIONS AND ISSUES Working Definitions of the 'All Forest' and 'No Action' Scenarios Jeff Sweeney discussed the guiding principles used in the 2003 allocation. The Chesapeake Bay Program will probably be following a lot of the same principles, with some modifications. Background information is available at http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendarAVQTWG 06-05- 08 Handout 1 9538.pdf. ¦ Once the cap load is determined, we will have to divvy out the overall cap load. Jeff presented information to guide this step of the allocation. ¦ In 2003, basins were divided into high, medium, and low impact categories so that basins with the highest impact on water quality (Susquehanna, Western Shore Maryland, and Eastern Shore Virginia) would need to achieve the highest controls. ¦ The high impact basins ultimately got a 64% reduction from the anthropogenic load, 61% for medium, and 58% for low impact basins. ¦ To allocate within impact categories, the anthropogenic load was identified as the no- BMP load minus the all-forest load. Thus, the higher the anthropogenic load in the basin, the higher the preliminary allocation is likely to be. ¦ The all-forest scenario will simulate the nutrient and sediment loads that would occur if the entire watershed was forested. This scenario does not necessarily characterize existing, naturally-occurring pollutants. ¦ We need to establish the appropriate atmospheric deposition for the all-forest and no- BMP scenarios. o The 2003 allocation projected the 1990 Clean Air Act implementation out to 2020 to determine the amount of atmospheric deposition. ¦ The no-BMP scenario is a "what-if' scenario of watershed conditions mostly without managed controls on load sources. o This scenario should provide equity among major tributaries and jurisdictions. o For the 2003 allocations, wastewater treatment plant flows were projected through 2010. o The Watershed Technical Workgroup recommends investigating a more "level playing field" for point source dischargers. Discussion ¦ Ron Entringer, NY DEC, was not comfortable with the idea that universal assumptions will provide equity. o For point source dischargers, using 1985 as a baseline gives credit for point sources that is not due or equitable. o There is a difference in the management of the land resource when you have animals in high densities versus living off the landscapes. What you're doing 1 ------- doesn't take into account ammonia emissions, which makes the assumptions inequitable. ¦ Lewis Linker said that there is a mass balance with the model, and the concentrated animal operations are seen in the wet deposition and CMAQ analyses. o Ron said that a lot of the emissions are very localized in terms of deposition. ¦ Jeff Sweeney believes the model will capture that. The model is shifting from high NOx emissions and deposition to high ammonia emissions and deposition. ¦ Ron Entringer does not agree with using the year 2010 for any equity decisions; he suggests going back to 1985 loads. o Kenn Pattison, PA DEP, said that using 2010 as a no-BMP scenario with growth, you will get handicapped by that growth because you will have a higher load in your allocation and be more responsible. Consequently, those jurisdictions with lower growth rates would be a relatively lower portion of the 2010 load and should be less responsible than in 1985. o Ron would like the lowest starting point possible if using the percent reduction method. ¦ The modelers track the animals in the watershed and imported feed increases animal population manure applications. ¦ There will be significant changes in atmospheric deposition through 2030 that will help us out considerably. ¦ John Kennedy, VA DEQ, asked what out year we would be running the no-BMP scenario out to. o The choice of the base year for setting allocations has to do with how much growth you would consider in allocations. ¦ Ron Entringer would like to discuss the delivery factors. If a lot of the headwater load isn't delivered to the Bay, you cannot say loads in the headwaters will have the same impact as the loads bordering the Bay. This is another area of inequity. ¦ Lewis clarified that the general framework to set the anthropogenic load is a worthwhile framework. The decision years each have compelling reasons, and the WQSC said that we will do a 2010 allocation. We will try to work out the logical concerns to deal with a more representative picture. ¦ Lewis recommended that if we use technical precedent as a guide, and address the equity concerns, 2010 is where we set the allocation before, making it difficult to choose another base allocation year. In addition, using the same year would allow for comparison. o Ron understands the benefits of 2010 but he still wants to see the 1985 comparison to make a benchmark determination. ¦ The Water Quality Steering Committee is scheduled to make a decision for the baseline year in the fall. ¦ Kenn Pattison suggested checking with the wastewater folks to ensure they are still using the 18 mg/1 default concentration. 2 ------- ACTION: The modelers will show 1985 and 2010 no-BMP scenarios to the Reevaluation Technical Workgroup on an upcoming conference call to make the necessary decisions. ACTION: Jennifer Sincock will check with the Wastewater Treatment Workgroup to ensure they are still using 18 mg/1 as a default concentration. Allocating Benefits from Atmospheric Deposition Reductions The Chesapeake Bay Airshed Model: Lewis Linker presented options for allocating reductions in model-simulated atmospheric deposition. The briefing material is available at http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendarAVQTWG 06-05- 08 Handout 2 9538.pdf. ¦ Air loads are going down and have always, and will continue to, provide us with significant pollutant reduction benefits. ¦ There are direct (on the Bay and tidal waters) and indirect (onto the watershed) atmospheric loads. ¦ Anything over and above the SIP Call would be eligible for reductions in the allocation by State partners. ¦ A new ozone standard came out last year and is expected to further reduce atmospheric deposition. ¦ Lewis suggested that it may be best to apply atmospheric deposition as background load, similar to what was done in the 2003 allocation. ¦ If there are air emission reductions beyond the Clean Air Act, we should credit the deposition reductions in the State and outside the State as a part of their reductions. ¦ There will be a big initial drop in atmospheric deposition in 2010 due to reductions in emissions from electric generating units, followed by further but slower reductions in 2020 and 2030 from mobile sources. ¦ The strawman recommendations for allocation atmospheric deposition reductions include: o The assumptions used for the allocation of atmospheric deposition should be consistent throughout the key management scenarios, o The base year used for allocating atmospheric deposition need not be consistent with the year of the land use estimates for the key allocation scenarios. o Air quality improvements beyond what is required by the Clean Air Act would be credited toward meeting allocations. ¦ NY has an acid rain TMDL, in which they projected future controls and used the difference between controls and what has to happen to set the TMDL. ¦ Lewis suggested doing a set of base allocation scenarios to see how the various scenarios would look: o 2010 all-forest and 2010 no-BMP all with 2010 atmospheric deposition o 1985 all-forest and no-BMP with 2010 atmospheric deposition o 2010 all-forest and no-BMP with 2020 atmospheric deposition 3 ------- ACTION: The Modeling Team will run the following set of case allocation scenarios to show the Reevaluation Technical Workgroup how the various scenarios would play out for the allocation: (a) 2010 all-forest and no-BMP scenarios with 2010 atmospheric deposition, (b) 1985 all-forest and no-BMP scenarios with 2010 atmospheric deposition, and (c) 2010 all-forest and no-BMP scenarios with 2020 atmospheric deposition. Lewis will present the results on an upcoming Reevaluation Technical Workgroup conference call. ACTION: Lewis Linker will revise the strawman recommendations based on Workgroup comments and will redistribute them for review. Adjusting Ocean Boundary Conditions Due to Reduced Nitrogen Deposition ¦ Estimates are that atmospheric deposition loads are roughly equivalent to watershed loads. ¦ Lewis is suggesting that there is potential to reduce the ocean boundary condition for nitrogen, but there is only one reference for the impacts and sparse monitoring data to support the numbers. ¦ The ocean boundary used in the Water Quality Model may be reduced by up to 7% when running simulations of the 2030 conditions of air controls and Tributary Strategies. ¦ Ron Entringer recommended continuing to try to quantify the impacts because he does not feel comfortable using a 7% reduction. DECISION: The Reevaluation Technical Workgroup agreed to consider reducing the ocean boundary condition for nitrogen as a possible option for review and decision by the Water Quality Steering Committee. Participants Jennifer Sincock EPA Region 3 sincock.i ennifer(a),epa. gov Sara Parr CRC/CBPO soarr (a), chesaoeakebav.net Jeff Sweeney UMD/CBPO i sweenevfS),chesapeakebav.net Lewis Linker EPA/CBPO llinkerfo),chesaDeakebav.net Gary Shenk EPA/CBPO gshenkfo),chesapeakebav.net Olivia Devereux UMD/CBPO devereux(a),umd. edu Rachel Wies Hassan Mirsajadi DEDNREC has san. mir sai adi (a), state. de. us John Kennedy VADEQ i mkennedv(3),deq .Virginia, gov Arthur Butt VADEQ aibutt(3),dea .Virginia, gov Kenn Pattison PA DEP kpattisonfo),state.pa.us Ed Reilly NY DEC exreillv(S),gw.dec.state.nv.us Ron Entringer NY DEC raentrinfo), gw. dec. state. nv. us Lorraine Gregory NY DEC Dinorah Dalmasy MDE ddalmasv(3),mde. state, md. us Tom Thornton MDE tthornton(a),mde. state.md.us 4 ------- Robin Pellicano MDE rpellicano@mde. state, md. us Mike Haire EPA HQ haire.michael@epa.gov 5 ------- |