Chesapeake Bay Program Reevaluation Technical Workgroup Conference Call May 27, 2008 SUMMARY OF DECISIONS, ACTIONS AND ISSUES Review of Workgroup Schedule Through October 2008 Jennifer Sincock, EPA Region 3, reviewed the schedule for Reevaluation Technical Workgroup's conference calls through October 2008, when the next Water Quality Steering Committee meeting is planned for. The schedule can be found on Attachment A, ¦ There are currently two open conference calls, which will serve as buffers and will be scheduled if time-sensitive or other issues arise. ¦ Hassan Mirsajadi, DE DNREC, asked to see some of the model's scoping scenarios. He suggested that we may want to have a face-to-face meeting to review the model results when they are available. o Rich Batiuk said that in about a month we'll have a better idea of when the scoping scenarios will be ready for the group's review. At that time, we'll discuss working the scoping scenarios into the schedule. • Attachment B is the Water Quality Steering Committee's conference call schedule through September 2008. • Attachment C is a detailed bulleted summary of the Bay TMDL work schedule through October 2008. o John Kennedy clarified that on this work schedule, the June bullet for the Nutrient Subcommittee's Wastewater Treatment Workgroup will not be a one-time data compilation of non-significant industrial wastewater treatment plants. The data collection will be an on-going process, and will not be completed by June. • Arthur Butt, VA DEQ, pointed out that the ocean boundary condition is a moving target and complicated discussion. o Rich Batiuk clarified that the conference call on June 5th will simply start the complex discussion to keep the process moving. DECISION: The Reevaluation Technical Workgroup agreed with the proposed schedule of conference call dates and topics through October 2008. Review of the Draft Bay TMDL Documentation Outline and Authorship Assignments Jennifer Sincock introduced the Workgroup to the TMDL documentation outline and authorship assignments found on Attachment D. Jennifer pointed out that the better the TMDL documentation and the record is, the more likely that we will be successful in the face of legal challenges. ------- The TMDL report outline has been significantly revised since the last version that was seen by the Workgroup. Initial authorship assignments have been made for the report. Pat Buckley pointed out that in section 3 of the outline, the 2003 use attainability analysis was never revised to reflect revised BMP efficiencies. o Rich Batiuk responded stating that the reason for referencing the 2003 UAA is to document part of the basis for the final set of Chesapeake Bay water quality standards adopted by Maryland. We will document that the 2003 UAA results were never updated to reflect changes in the BMP efficiencies adopted by the CBP partners in 2004. Section 4 includes MD, VA, DE, and DC's 2008 and 2010 303(d) listings. Although 2008 will be the main listing, the 2010 listings will be referenced for adding or removing waters that have a change in status. Dinorah Dalmasy, MDE, and other members, suggested that the Bay TMDL report be kept short and concise, placing superfluous information in appendices. o Jennifer Sincock reminded the group of the need to balance defensibility and documentation with ease of reading. Jennifer encouraged Workgroup members to send her comments, o John Kennedy pointed out that the implementation plans put clean-up plans in the context of the Bay. The Bay TMDL report should focus on water quality standards of the impaired waters. Rich Batiuk asked the group if they were interested in documenting the unique Bay allocations/TMDL story to understand how the pieces were put together, or if they would prefer to simply meet the basic requirements of a TMDL document with the extra information capture in a series of appendices. o John Kennedy thought it would be cleaner, easier, and less prone to challenges if it simply meets the basic requirements, o Hassan Mirsajadi suggested that we write an executive summary to meet the basic requirements of the TMDL report, as well as the full report as outlined in the Attachment D. o Kenn Pattison recommended doing a stand-alone Bay TMDL report with a back-up technical support document which would contain the additional information described in the draft outline that some readers may want read or reference. o Tom Thornton pointed out there is a lot of information included in the outline that really doesn't need to be a part of the TMDL document. If we want to present the information, technical appendices would be the way to go, but not put it in the main body of the report, o Chris Day, EPA Region 3, pointed out that we will need to clarify which versions of the extensive history of CBP related documentation were used in development of the TMDL because the Bay Program has so many different versions of documents over time. Dave Montali, WV DEP, suggested that section 5 be moved to 10. Sections 6, 7, and 8 appear to all be allocation issues that may be better suited in appendices. ------- o Bill Brown, PA DEP, agreed with Dave but thought that although most of the information could be put into an accompanying technical support document, some components of Section 6 should remain in the main body of the report. ¦ Arthur Butt suggested the report be kept at legal requirements that the audiences can read and understand. ¦ Section 7 will remain a qualitative section, with more detailed information on the source assessment in attachments. ¦ The group agreed to move Section 7 to precede Section 6. ¦ Section 8.7 is also listed under Section 6.6 and 3.4 but should be discussed solely under 8.7. ¦ Bill Brown said that sections 9.5 and 9.6 calling for establishing waste load and load allocations by jurisdictions do not reflect the current status of the Bay Program partnership's decisions. It could be revised to say "establishment of boundary load allocations by jurisdictions." ¦ Attachment E lists recommended documents for incorporation into the Bay TMDL's record of decision. DECISION: The Reevaluation Technical Workgroup decided to write a concise Bay TMDL report that meets the basic required element of an approvable TMDL document. An accompanying technical support document with appendices would be written, providing a higher level of detail and documentation supporting the Bay TMDL report. ACTION: Jennifer Sincock will work with Tetra Tech to revise the outline based on the Workgroup members' concerns and will send out the revised outline for review. Lessons Learned: Review of Interstate/Multi-iurisdictional TMDLs and TMDLs with Innovative Approaches Towards Implementation Andrew Parker and Clint Boschen, Tetra Tech, have been gathering examples of multi- jurisdictional and innovative TMDLs that accelerate implementation. Attachment F illustrates some current and past example TMDLs. The information in the tables can be organized and expanded upon as the Workgroup wishes. ¦ Pennsylvania would be interested in identifying which TMDLs utilized boundary allocations. ¦ Tom Thornton suggested that the Anacostia sediments TMDL that was approved last year for MD and DC be added to the list as both an interstate TMDL and one providing boundary allocations. ¦ The Neuse River TMDL in North Carolina was recommended as another example TMDL to be added to the list of TMDLs with innovative approaches towards implementation. ¦ Dave Montali said that some WV TMDLs have boundary conditions with VA. An approved VA TMDL has provided boundary conditions for WV. These TMDLs should be added to the list. ¦ Hassan Mirsajadi said that the Christina River TMDL is another good example of assigning boundary loads between PA and DE. 3 ------- ¦ Jennifer Sincock suggested Tetra Tech summarize how the following components are handled in the example TMDLs: reasonable assurance, nutrient credit exchange, multi-jurisdictional boundary conditions, restoration goals, and writing a TMDL that accelerates implementation. ACTION: Tetra Tech will summarize how the following components are handled in the example TMDLs: reasonable assurance, nutrient credit exchange, multi-jurisdictional boundary conditions, restoration goals, and writing a TMDL that accelerates implementation. Next Reevaluation Technical Workgroup Conference Call The next Reevaluation Technical Workgroup conference call will be on Thursday, June 5th from 10:00 to 11:30 AM. The group will discuss defining natural background loads, establishing the ocean boundary condition, review the working definitions of the scoping "all forest" and "no action" scenarios, and discuss allocation benefits from atmospheric deposition reductions. Participants Jennifer Sincock EPA Region 3 sincock.i ennifer(a),epa. gov Rich Batiuk EPA/CBPO batiuk.richardfo), eoa.gov Sara Parr CRC/CBPO sparr (a), chesapeakebav.net Chris Day EPA Region 3 dav.christoDherfo),eoa.gov John Kennedy VADEQ i mkennedv(3),deq .Virginia, gov Arthur Butt VADEQ aibutt(3),dea .Virginia, gov Russ Perkinson VADCR russ.perkinsonfo),dcr.virginia.gov Moira Croghan VADCR moira.croghanfo),dcr.virginia.gov Dave Montali WV DEP dmontali(3),wvdep. org Hassan Mirsajadi DEDNREC has san. mir sai adi (a), state. de. us Tom Thornton MDE tthornton(a),mde. state.md.us Dinorah Dalmasy MDE ddalmasv(3),mde. state, md. us Kenn Pattison PA DEP kpattisonfo),state.pa.us Pat Buckley PA DEP DbucklevfS),state.pa.us Bill Brown PA DEP willbrownfo),state.pa.us Ed Reilly NY DEC exreillv(S),gw.dec.state.nv.us Andrew Parker Tetra Tech andrew. parker(a),tetratech. com Clint Boschen Tetra Tech clint.boschenfo),tetratech.com Revised: May 29, 2008 4 ------- |