Chesapeake Bay Program
Reevaluation Technical Workgroup Meeting

November 16, 2007

SUMMARY OF DECISIONS, ACTIONS AND ISSUES
Welcome, Introductions, and Opening Remarks

The Reevaluation Technical Workgroup is joined by a few new members, including Russ
Perkinson and and Moira Croghan from Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation, as well as Mary Kuo, TMDL Team Leader, from EPA Region 3. Since the
last Reevaluation Technical Workgroup meeting on October 25th, the meeting minutes
have been finalized, the TMDLs timeline has been updated, an issues chart was
developed, and the roles, responsibilities, and protocols document was revised to reflect
the discussions of workgroup members in October.

Action Items from October 25— Reevaluation Technical Workgroup Meeting

¦ Clint Boschen, Tetra Tech, provided an outline of what the Chesapeake Bay
Reassessment Report may look like.

o It does not include the sub-allocations. They will have to be added if they will

be a part of the TMDL development report,
o The outline is modeled after the Potomac PCB TMDL report,
o Unique to the Chesapeake Bay, the outline addresses how to integrate the past
Chesapeake Bay restoration and modeling efforts and the unique aspects of
the modeling framework,
o The outline is fairly general. Bulleted items may be subsections or simply

notes of information that needs to be included in the sections,
o Arthur Butt, VA DEQ, participated in the Potomac TMDL and noted that the
document changed up through the last minute. The TMDL itself was lean on
technical components, such as the modeling aspect, because that information
was separated out into another document.

¦ Arthur added that the reasonable assurance section took the longest.
There was a lot of give and take about how to organize it due to the
varying state programs,
o Rich Batiuk suggested that next step for the outline should be starting to

identify and write the sections that can be written now.
o Clint responded that we can start to make assignments but we need to keep in

mind that it is a living document,
o Ron Entringer, NY DEC, pointed out that we will have two different issues—
nutrients will be similar to PCBs but sediments could get us into
complications. The sooner we decide how a sediment TMDs will be done, the
better.

o Moira Croghan, VA DCR, said that given that Tributary Strategies will be
done in 2011 and that we plan to sub-allocate to nonpoint sources up through

1


-------
the watershed, she would like more time to review the plans with management
in order for them to realize that these discussions are happening right now.
o The TMDLs report will outline how a strategy for implementation may

appear, providing reasonable assurance and Tributary Strategy evidence. The
workgroup will further discuss the implementation and Tributary Strategy
issue in the future.

¦ Sue McDowell sent out a revised Gantt chart with an updated annotated list of
activities.

o Ron Entringer thought that it was unreasonable to have basin allocations by
October. Time should be built in for confirmation of what's going on and
allowing time for the public to weigh in. The sediment issue makes it difficult
for NY to get everything done by October. Ron will think about a more
appropriate timeline,
o Sue McDowell noted that we do recognize the need to add items and detail to
the timeline and will continue to do so.

• Based on the workgroup's conversation in October, a table of categorized issues was
developed that illustrates data/info needs, timeframe, and decision-makers.

ACTION: Reevaluation Technical Workgroup members will review the Chesapeake
Bay Reassessment Report outline and transmit comments to Sue McDowell via e-mail,
identifying sections that we can start to write. Members will volunteer themselves to
write sections.

ACTION: States should begin to summarize their state programs that will contribute to
the reasonable assurance documentation.

ACTION: Reevaluation Technical Workgroup members will review the Gantt timeline
chart and send comments and suggested revisions to Sue McDowell via e-mail.

ACTION: Reevaluation Technical Workgroup members will review the issue table and
provide feedback to Sue McDowell via e-mail by November 26th.

What is the Scope/Framework of this Effort? To What Sources Should we
Allocate?

The CBP Reevaluation Technical Workgroup Issue Paper: "What is the geographic
scope of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL" lays out three options for

o Option 1 sets us up to definitely meet our legal requirements, developing a TMDL

for the Bay and its tidal waters for the 78 Bay segments,
o Option 2 is the same as Option 1 but goes further up into the watershed, with a

more comprehensive plan for the Bay that includes the headwaters,
o Option 3 is a negotiated timeframe for doing the TMDLs that are not under legal
obligation.

¦ PA reminded the workgroup that the chosen option must maintain a "do no harm"
principle.

2


-------
¦	Ron Entringer pointed out that it's hard to do a waste load allocation to a place that is
not in a segment. NY did a gross TMDL such as Option 1 but they are now revisiting
the Long Island TMDL and looking to do allocations up into CT and the headwater
states.

¦	For allocations and TMDLs, it is difficult to address the various components, such as
the challenge of sediments, so we have to separate components somehow and assess
them differently.

¦	Dave Montali, WV, pointed out that the listing of some waters is based on the
downstream impact of the Chesapeake Bay. Are the things listed now directly
impaired or are some historically listed due to their contribution to a downstream
impairment?

o They are all locally, directly impaired.

o Rich Batiuk added the importance of differentiating between the old and new
impairments. The partnership works to connect impairments with the
upstream waters. From a reasonable assurance perspective, if we don't
allocate further up into the watershed, we will have a very weak case of
having reasonable assurance that we will get the nonpoint source reductions.

¦	Charles Martin, VA, noted that VA has a 2011 deadline for their TMDLs.

o Sue McDowell reassured VA that we are keeping their deadline in mind.

¦	Nauth Panday, MD, pointed out that we also have to consider if we go up into the
watershed, that MD has numerous separate nontidal listings. If we do TMDLs for
nontidal waters, we need to make sure local water quality standards are being met
with the appropriate tools.

o Option 3 may provide more time to think through the nontidal issues.

o MD is under the obligation to address nontidal TMDLs by 2011. Nauth hopes
we can address the Bay TMDLs alongside the local nontidal TMDLs but there
is limited time for that.

o The Bay standards do not go far enough to protect the nontidal waters for MD.

¦	Hassan Mirsajadi, DE, has established TMDLs for watersheds to protect local water
quality. They view the Bay TMDL as additional control to protect downstream water
quality. DE may not need to have watershed-wide TMDLs because they already have
one in place.

¦	PA would resist the allocations beyond Option 1. With permits from PA's strategy
for point source allowable loads, they could have reasonable assurance that they
could meet those cap loads. It would be detrimental to their on-the-ground efforts if
caps were changed so they are asking for flexibility under a gross load that the state is
responsible for.

¦	Monir Chowdhury, DC, wants the TMDLs to be divided up for the watershed in a
consistent manner for all jurisdictions.

¦	The permanence of the cap loads will define WV's situation.

¦	Moira Croghan added that VA would be advocates of Option 2 or 3 but would like
more time to discuss it. VA is close to allocations at the jurisdictional (county) level.

¦	The workgroup's recommendations for the geographic scope will be brought before
the Water Quality Steering Committee at its February 2008 meeting.

¦	Bob Koroncai, EPA, pointed out that we are all hoping for similar allocations. The
major distinction between the states is that if we do a detailed TMDL, it provides

3


-------
some states with a muscle for writing permits. For other states, they are well on their
way to meeting allocations. But does the extra muscle and detail hurt implementation
in those particular states?

o Pat Buckley, PA, claimed that for an individual MS4, it does hurt PA. PA
envisions that any loads allocated to individual MS4s would be done
consistently with local TMDLs. Implementation would be hindered because
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model is not adequately calibrated down to
the local level. Counties do not have the implementing authority for MS4s.

¦	Bob Koroncai asked if it would at least be informative to have
allocations to the county? Sub-allocations could then find their way
into the MS4 permits.

¦	Ron Entringer pointed out that NY has given a lump number for urban
stormwater, for example, and focused on a percent reduction that
needed to be captured in their stormwater management program. States
will still have control on how they write load allocations and write
permits.

¦	Bob Koroncai clarified that we have to write the TMDLs in a way that
informs the MS4 permitting. It may be different from one state to
another how the TMDL is written. States should recognize how they
would write their MS4 permits in light of the TMDLs. How the
sediment reductions would be in specificity and goals will vary among
the states.

o The workgroup will further discuss at what scale to allocate sediment for
MS4s, agriculture, and wastewater treatment plants. Until then, the
workgroup will attempt to grasp the significance of the MS4s issue.

¦	Bob Koroncai noted his concern with Option 1 because he does not see how it is
different from what is currently happening.

¦	WV's Opekan Creek TMDL allowed 1 million tons per year, whereas USGS says the
Potomac can only hold 2 million tons per year. Local impacts and Bay impacts may
be very different.

¦	Bob Koroncai suggested that states think about what scale makes the most sense for
their respective state for allocating to the different major sources, at least for
agriculture and significant wastewater treatment plants.

¦	Nauth Panday pointed out that BODs would have to be included if TMDLs go up into
nontidal waters.

o Ron Entringer asked that the workgroup focus on the critical issues that apply
across the watershed. TMDLs are not necessary for every segment and every
water quality concern,
o Bill Brown stated that this issue is why PA tries to keep their local and Bay
TMDLs separate.

o Nauth stated his support for Option 1 in light of the complications of nontidal
waters, MS4s, etc., focusing on the major tidal waters. He wants to nest his
local impairments in the tidal cap loads,
o Ed Reilly, NY, clarified that Option 2 focuses on the TMDL for the Bay
waters but looking at the background loads from the nontidal waters and
allocating to the nontidal waters to meet the water quality standards in the

4


-------
Bay. It doesn't say to do a TMDL for every segment in the nontidal
segments.

ACTION: Sue McDowell will provide more details to the workgroup members on the
timeline and technical capabilities of the options prior to the December 17th workgroup
meeting when the workgroup will try to come to a resolution on the appropriate
geographic scope of the TMDLs.

ACTION: Workgroup members will think about what scale makes the most sense for
their respective states to allocate to the different major sources, at least for agriculture
and significant wastewater treatment plants. The workgroup will continue its discussion
at its December 17th meeting.

ACTION: Workgroup members/states will share with one another how they are working
with MS4 allocations now.

December Briefing on Chesapeake Bay Models

Sue McDowell asked the workgroup members for input on what modeling issues they are

interested in hearing about at the workgroup's December 17th model-focused meeting.

¦	Ron Entringer said that NY is very interested in how transport factors changed from
Phase 4.3 to Phase 5.

¦	Moira Croghan said that VA is most interested in learning about the recent calibration
information and the specifics on the differences between the two phases of the model.
They hope to understand states' delivered loads and needed reductions.

¦	Dave Montali would like a 101 on the model because he is not as familiar with the
model as others. He will have questions regarding the kinds of sources, how we get
source information, and how they are represented, including basic questions of how
the model portrays existing information.

¦	Bill Brown would like the workgroup to see the new calibration stations to get an idea
of whether we are losing accuracy in the model as we get up into added stations
further up into the watershed.

¦	Hassan Mirsajadi would like to see assumptions that have gone into the model and its
limitations.

ACTION: Workgroup members will send additional requests regarding agenda items

for the modeling meeting on December 17th to Sue McDowell.

Next Steps

ACTION: Sue McDowell will send out the link to the unlinked Reevaluation Technical

Workgroup webpage.

ACTION: Ron Entringer and Dinorah Dalmasy will help Sue McDowell and Rich

Batiuk refine the timeline and issue chart.

5


-------
ACTION: Save the Date: CB Models briefing and Q&A (send questions in advance for
consideration by modelers) December 17, 2007,10am - 2pm Model Discussion; 2:30 -
4:00 PM continued discussion on scope and scale of TMDLs.

Participants



Sue McDowell

EPA Region

Clint Boschen

Tetra Tech

Rich Batiuk

EPA/CBPO

Pat Buckley

PA DEP

Nauth Panday

MDE

Francoise Brasier

EPA HQ

Mike Haire

EPA HQ

Bill Brown

PA DEP

Dinorah Dalmasy

MDE

Monir Chowdhury

DC DOE

Ed Reilly

NY DEC

Charles Martin

VADEQ

Felix Locicero

EPA Region

Dave Montali

WV DEP

Hassan Mirsajadi

DEDNREC

Chris Day

EPA Region

Mary Kuo

EPA Region

Tom Henry

EPA Region

Bob Koroncai

EPA Region

Ron Entringer

NY DEC

Kenn Pattison

PA DEP

Dave Montali

WV DEP

Moira Croghan

VADCR

Russ Perkinson

VADCR

Arthur Butt

VADEQ

mcdowell. susan@epa. gov

clint.boschen@tetratech-ffx.com

batiuk.richard@epa.gov

pbucklev@state.pa.us

npandav@mde. state, md. us

brasier.francoise@epa.gov

haire.michael@epa.gov

willbrown@state.pa.us

ddalmasv@mde. state, md. us

monir.chowdhury@dc.gov

exreilly@gw.dec.state.ny.us

chmartin@deq .Virginia, gov

locicero.felix@epa.gov

dmontali@wvdep. org

has san. mir sai adi @ state. de. us

dav.christopher@epa.gov

kuo.mary@epa.gov

henry.thomas@epa.gov

koroncai. robert@epa. gov

raentrin@ gw. dec. state. ny. us

kpattison@state.pa.us

dmontali@wvdep. org

moira.croghan@dcr.virginia.gov

russ.perkinson@dcr.virginia.gov

aibutt@deq.virginia.gov

6


-------