Chesapeake Bay Program Water Quality Steering Committee
November 14-15, 2007 Meeting Summary
2030 LAND CHANGE FORECASTS
Issue
To establish common expectations on the purpose, products, timeline, and application of
the 2030 land and sewer/septic source forecasts.
Briefing Materials
2030 Land Use Presentation
2030 Land Change Forecasts
STAC Review of 2030 Land Change Modeling Approach
Discussion
•	Carin Bisland (EPA CBPO) opened the discussion by establishing the basic fact
that land use change is happening across the watershed and it will impact water
quality in the future. This tool will inform CBP decision makers taking advantage
of the phase 5 model, and will work inline with the development of the Phase 5
watershed model. This presentation provides an overview of where we are going
and how we plan to get there. Information is not available at this time to guide a
decision process. We do anticipate, however, the potential for contradictions in
the trend scenarios from the various sectors (e.g., urban, agriculture, and forests)
which will require resolution by the Bay Program Partners over the next six
months. This land use projections project will be peer reviewed by STAC upon
completion. We are looking for confirmation from the WQSC as to how efficient
this schedule would be and if any tweaks are necessary to make this project work
inline with other projects feeding into the Phase 5 watershed model. The 2030
land use projections look at historic trends and trendforecasts (e.g., a business as
usual scenario). The 2030 land use projections can simulate:
Post 2000 trends in agriculture and population,
Change in projected populations consistent with climate
change scenarios, and
The effect of forest conservation directive goals, etc.
•	Moira Croghan (VA DCR) requested that the historic trend information that is
being used for this project be sent to the WQSC.
•	Rich Eskin (MD MDE) asked that when the alternative scenarios are ran, can
economic factors such as interest rates considered? Can these alternative scenarios
be predicted?
•	Peter Claggett (USGS) told the WQSC that in general we can only simulate
exponential growth and this leveling off at a certain point. As we progress in this
process, we will be looking for input from the states. It would be great if we could
discuss this further with the states.
•	Pat Buckley (PA DEP) asked the 2030 land use projection workgroup could
present this information to Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay advisory committee in
Harrisburg.
1

-------
•	Ann Swanson (CBC) commented that basically this is meant to look at current
trends and the next step is coming up with alternatives that we can test. If this is
the case, this presupposes that some of this analysis results could prompt calls for
legislation. Ann asked Peter Claggett when the alternative future scenarios will be
run so that these land use change results can be presented to policy makers.
•	Carin Bisland stated that the results from the initial alternative future scenarios
will be ready in March or April of 2007.
•	Pat Stuntz (CBC) asked if this will allow for a county level analysis.
•	Carin Bisland responded that this type of analysis is very intriguing, but right now
we are focusing on the regional analysis. If the states update their population
projections we can simulate this as a trend scenario in the near term or as an
alternative future scenario.
•	John Schneider (DE DNREC) asked if there is a need to account for growth
when allocating for a potential Baywide TMDL.
•	Chris Day (EPA) said that there are some TMDLs with specific growth
allocations, and a Baywide TMDL would probably look for the margin of safety
to account for an appropriate growth projection.
•	Bob Yowell (PA DEP) asked when this was going to be put into the water quality
model.
•	Lewis Linker (EPA) replied that this would happen in late January 2007 for the
watershed model and then in April 2007 we can do this in the Bay water quality
model.
•	Bob Yowell asked if it would be appropriate to run these scenarios in the old
watershed model and then later run this in the new watershed model to compare
scenarios. Bob commented that this new information is really needed closer to
2010, not now. If these projections are overly negative, it could throw cold water
efforts towards point source reductions and agriculture conservation. People may
not see their efforts having a positive impact. It is important to figure out how to
not have a deleterious effect on efforts to implement. We need to think how to
develop this model for management purposes without disseminating the
information it generates.
•	Rich Batiuk (EPA) said that as we work with the new watershed model, we are
working to provide the managers with results from initial scoping scenarios to
help them understand how sensitive the model is to changes in growth patterns.
•	Rich Eskin asked why the CBP spends resources on scoping scenarios, when we
need a calibrated model for decision making. Rich thought that it is important to
be careful with parceling information out.
•	Lewis Linker responded that it is useful to do scoping runs for practice, what we
are doing is a test run on our input deck. We are really testing and developing the
tool for eventual management applications.
•	Carin Bisland emphasized that those working on the 2030 land use projections are
really looking for any help that the states can give to avoid potential political
ramifications.
•	Peter Claggett added that the 2030 land use approach uses various modeling
packages together to understand all this broad information. Basically we are using
impervious surface as represented in Landsat imagery for 1990 and 2000 to
2

-------
calibrate a model to simulate the timescale change in land use in order to project
out into the future the amount of impervious surface in the future. Based on
population estimates, we are headed for an increase in 1.7 million people in the
next decade. However, accompanying this population growth is an increase in
impervious surface that is growing at a greater rate. We will want input from the
jurisdictions to determine if what we simulate reflects what is happening in
reality. We can view our SLEUTH output to compare where actual development
happens in relation to where we predict it will happen. This is valuable because
we can understand the pattern of change. The reason we are looking at this at the
county scale is because we can view where we can try some control measures and
this will inform the PSC for decision making.
•	Moira Croghan added that Virginia is planning to look at growth controls at a
county level.
•	Peter Claggett addressed the accuracy issue on the SLEUTH model. The data
driving the urban change is on a 30 meter scale which makes this compatible with
the Phase 5 model. It pulls in information on a county scale that is very accurate,
so the county level approach makes sense.
•	Rich Eskin commented that this exercise does not take into account zoning.
•	Peter Claggett replied that as of right now we do not incorporate zoning, but that
this can be incorporated into this. Zoning is up for contention as to its
effectiveness as a management plan. Peter added that the real beauty of this tool is
that we can use the agriculture census trends for beef, cattle, dairy, and broiler
data, as well as row crops. We use this to project the ability of farmland to resist
development relative to forest. This allows us to look at the probability of forest
and farmland conversion. This is a logical way to incorporate USDA agriculture
census data and forest service data as well, so we get at the whole land use piece.
Unfortunately, this data is not statistically significant for forests.
•	Bob Yowell commented that he supports this work as long as this modeling does
not have impacts on the water quality model until 2009 to avoid talking about the
TMDL allocation.
•	Diana Esher asked if the WQSC is comfortable with running SLEUTH and
GAMe to look at the population trends and land use trends in isolation from the
watershed model allocations.
•	Ann Swanson commented that it makes sense for the jurisdictions to want to
connect this to the watershed model, so we need to be careful about how to
communicate this information to the public. Water quality trends from the model
provide some factual force that can help motivate people.
•	Bob Yowell agreed with doing this, but cautioned that the issue is more a matter
of when to do this.
•	Chris Pyke (EPA) told the WQSC that STAC reviewed the 2030 land use
projections project to evaluate it for specific changes. This was not a formal peer
review, it was more of a consultation of STAC and several academic experts in
land use change issues. In general this review determined that:
More stakeholder participation is needed;
Development of policy relevant scenarios are needed; and
Overall improved modeling is needed.
3

-------
•	All six reviewers were concerned about land use forecasts in terms of sensitivity
for forecasting a prediction of the future.
•	Socioeconomic forces are included as drivers of change differently in SLEUTH
and GAMe.
•	Tanya Spano (MWCOG) suggested that how the input data is organized does not
necessarily mean that this is how the data is reported out. It may be that it makes
sense to input county data, but report this out on the state level/regional level. We
need to set priorities bay wide as to where we want our accuracy. Another issue is
the utility of this output data at the local scale.
•	Bob Yowell thought that county level information is not necessary, because if
these projections are made at state level, this would be more accurate than at the
county level. It does not appear to Bob that the CBP adjusted the tool and work
plan based on what the STAC review suggested.
•	Chris Pyke stated that EPA is providing support to the CBP partners to evaluate
the sensitivity of CBP goals relative to climate change variability. EPA's Office
of Research and Development is helping CBP understand the implications of
climate change for our water quality restoration goals. Assumptions based on
historical conditions are important, but what we are dealing with in terms of
climate change is a variable that is happening now. It is predicted that the mid-
Atlantic region will have increases in total precipitation and an increase in
extreme precipitation events, with periods of drought in between and extended
summer seasons. The EPA analysis is working in line with the 2030 land use
projections. All climate models and scenarios suggest a change from historical
conditions. The question is how will these climate changes this effect our water
quality management for the Chesapeake Bay. The goal of all this is to do a
climate change sensitivity analysis for the whole Bay to help the CBP understand
the sensitivity to climate change to consider the sensitivity and adaptive value of
specific restoration activities.
•	Bob Yowell asked if the models included impacts to phytoplankton growth.
•	Lewis Linker stated the models will address these impacts.
•	Chris Day asked if potential impacts from sea level rise have been included in the
analysis.
•	Chris Pyke commented that there is a governmental report being prepared which
focuses on the mid Atlantic region as a whole. This will be the definitive study on
sea level rise. However, what is being recommended to the WQSC at this time
does not address sea level rise specifically.
•	Diana Esher added that this work is going on free of charge to the CBP.
•	Bob Korancai (EPA) asked if a 2010-2030 hydrologic simulation could be
produced to examine how this would factor into the allocation. Could we use
1995 to 2004 timeframe since this would be most likely be the time period that
best represents future climate change variability?
Decisions and Actions
ACTION: The 2030 Land Use Projections workgroup will provide an end of November
trend forecast to the WQSC.
4

-------
ACTION: The 2030 Land Use Projections Workgroup wants feedback from the states by
November 30th as to how our projections match their understanding of what is happening
on the ground in the jurisdictions.
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee agreed to the schedule for the 2030
Land Use Projections project, but requested that this work not be included in any Bay
water quality model scenarios until the PSC discusses this issue. The Steering Committee
further agreed to help guide the development of future scenarios.
ACTION: Pennsylvania has formally invited the presentation of the 2030 Land Use
Projections project at an upcoming Pennsylvania Chesapeake Bay advisory board
meeting.
ISSUE: The alternative futures scenarios will be developed in the March time frame.
The Water Quality Steering Committee did not resolve whether or not they would bring
the future scenarios into the watershed model in the January - March 2007 timeframe.
This issue will need to be resolved over a conference call.
PHASE 5 WATERSHED MODEL AND SCOPING SCENARIOS
Issue
This October, the CBP Modeling Team presented and the Modeling Subcommittee
approved the initial calibration of the Phase 5 Watershed Model. A series of scoping
scenarios to test Phase 5 watershed model behavior and to compare the Phase 5 and
Phase 4.3 watershed models are proposed.
Briefing Materials
Phase 5 Watershed Model
Discussion
•	Gary Shenk (EPA) summarized the Phase 5 watershed model and the schedule
for completion. Phase 5 is greatly improved over the Phase 4.3 model in
segmentation; the functionality is greatly improved; there is much better input
data and improved calibration model at tenfold more stations. The currently
calibrated version of the Phase 5 model is available on the web and can be
downloaded. The Phase 5 watershed model is complete and the automated
calibration methods have been approved by the Modeling Subcommittee. Up until
January 2008 and final model approval by the Water Quality Steering Committee,
no management scenarios will be run on the model.
•	Rich Eskin reiterated that as of January 2008, the Modeling Subcommittee will
ask for approval of the final Phase 5 watershed model. Until we get additional
direction from the PSC, we are not going to make any management decisions
based on model scenarios until after January 2008.
•	Gary Shenk added that as of January 2008 we will not release new loads before a
review of the decisions that led up to this. As of right now we are slightly over
calibrated for nitrogen, but we are getting a pretty good simulation for phosphorus
loads. The scale of the phase 5 output is the land-river segment aggregated to a
5

-------
county level. The CBP is providing information that is a good estimate of loads
on a county level, so that decisions can be made by the states at this scale if
desired. With this next version of the watershed model, we are not held to the
same constraints as we were held to with the Phase 4.3 model. We have more
confidence than we did in the past to take decision scale information to the next
scale down. To determine county level loads, we put a lot emphasis into ensuring
county scale inputs, county scale calibrations for land use and sub-county scale
land-river segmentation. The partners would be hard pressed to find a better way
to allocate down to the county level consistently across the basin.
•	Ann Swanson commented that she is puzzled by the level of concern over the
release of this model for management applications, because it seems that the CBP
has had many discussions about the local level. If it is just to get an understanding
on its application for the actual allocation, what is the problem? At the decision
scale, wouldn't it be constructive to bring together all local level governments and
other interests in a particular segment and show implications for various changes
over time. It is good to split it down to the county level for management options
like this. The county level is the smallest unit of decision making. Phase 5 is a
community model and some of the jurisdictions may want to go the county level.
This is a perfect case of where the jurisdictions should be flexible and this is a
tool that will allow the jurisdictions to go down to the county scale.
•	Rich Batiuk said that the partners specifically built in an extended period prior to
final approval of the Phase 5 watershed model for management application to
ensure a wider, deeper level of understanding and comfort level with the model,
its calibration, its sensitivity and plans for its applications. The Modeling
Subcommittee has requested a second STAC sponsored peer review of the Phase
5 model in the late spring 2007 time frame. We want everyone across the
watershed to look at the model and see how it works and what its applications can
be.
•	Bob Yowell asked if the sediment calibration differentiates between sediment
moving through the system and localized resuspended or erosive sediment?
•	Gary Shenk stated that the model does make this differentiation.
•	Beth McGee (CBF) thought that it makes sense to take full advantage of the
county level scale of model output because many decisions are made on the local
level.
•	Moira Croghan said that Virginia is in favor of using the model at the county
level. When they gather nonpoint input deck data, Virginia has the ability to
approach implementation at the county level to show county level load
responsibility. We also want to look at county level land use decisions and
develop county level restoration strategies.
•	Diana Esher summed up the situation by suggesting that it all depends on how
each state approaches implementation. The CBP has developed the model to be
flexible to work with many potential management schemes and scales.
•	Rich Eskin argued that a county scale is a good option, because certain types of
data are only available on the local level such as agriculture census data. Also
aggregating up from a finer scale will be more accurate than starting out at a
higher level. We also need to recognize that we are not the only decision makers;
6

-------
it would be great if we could provide data at local levels that is consistent with the
way we make decisions at the larger regional and baywide scales. When you
calibrate up from the county level it will be a more accurate allocation. Most of
the jurisdictions agreed that it is good to have the ability to go down to the county
level.
•	Bob Yowell highlighted that Pennsylvania counties have almost no individual
land use authority in their local governments.
•	Bob Yowell asked for a comparison between the two phases of the models to
show the variability in change and sort out the sensitivity of the new model to the
different variables.
•	Gary Shenk remarked that because of the very different nature of the two models
this will not be completely possible, but we can get close given certain
assumptions. When we finish the calibration we will be able to see how the model
plays out for the tributary strategies. Do the tributary strategies still meet the cap
loads after running them through the calibrated Phase 5 model? Do the tributary
strategies make the overall nutrient and sediment caps? Do the phase 5 modeled
caps still meet the water quality goals? These are some of the questions it would
be interesting for us to look.
•	Bob Yowell requested that all modeling work for phase 5 be halted until the PSC
meets and agrees that this is a good idea.
•	Ann Swanson responded that the leadership is beginning to understand what
tributary strategies are and they are beginning redo the tributary strategies. They
are beginning to see that the reallocation for a TMDL does not necessarily matter,
because whether it is 175 million pounds or 182 million pounds, we still have a
huge gap between where we are currently and actually achieving the 175 million
pound reduction.
•	Rich Eskin suggested that the CBP needs to continue to develop the model so that
it is ready when it is the time to make these management decisions.
•	Gary Shenk suggested the following tests of the current calibration of the Phase 5
watershed model. A comparison of phases 4.3 to 5 using an all forest scenario is
an example. We are doing these scoping scenarios for the benefit of the WQSC to
understand it better the Phase 5 model, to test the input decks, and adjust the
calibration.
•	Bob Koroncai reiterated that the CBP can not afford to delay the production runs
to the point where we will make poor decisions in 2010.
•	Allan Pollock (VA DEQ) said that it was agreed that only after the January 2008
allocation would we begin production runs. Between now and then it seems
appropriate to do scoping scenarios.
•	Ann Swanson reiterated this and highlighted the importance for the PSC to look at
this issue.
•	Rich Eskin said that in terms of the hydrologic cycle variable, based on what he
heard earlier about climate change, he would recommend we use the most recent
years based on the fact that what has happened in the further in the past is not
necessarily representative of future flow conditions.
Decisions and Actions
7

-------
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee agreed that if a jurisdiction wants a
specific scoping scenario run on the Phase 5 watershed model, it is their right to work
with the CBPO Modeling Team to hash out what they want and when they want it.
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee agreed to focus all upcoming
scenarios improving the accuracy of the model (through enhanced calibration) and
increasing our understanding of the sensitivity of the model. The Steering Committee
agreed on the five test input decks in an effort to understand how the new Phase 5 model
compares to the old Phase 4.3 model: 1985, 2000, no action, all forested watershed and
2030 no action scenario.
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee agreed to further evaluation of the
hydrologic period to eventually be used for running management scenarios.
ACTION: The CBPO Modeling Team generate will generate nitrogen, phosphorus and
sediment data sets from each of the ten year hydrologic periods from 1985 to 2005 (1985-
1994, 1986-1995, 1987-1996, etc.) and array the results for each potential hydrologic
period for review and evaluation by the Steering Committee.
CHESAPEAKE BAY AIRSHED MODEL SCENARIOS
Issue
The Water Quality Steering Committee had previously agreed to an initial set of
Chesapeake Bay Airshed Model scenarios. This agenda item is to confirm the list of Bay
Airshed Model scenarios to be run and provide the schedule for when the model output
will be made available.
Advance Materials
Chesapeake Airshed Scenarios
Chesapeake Airshed Scenario Presentation
Discussion
•	Lewis Linker notified the WQSC that the airshed modeling effort is on schedule
and that the CBPO Modeling Team has started to run the first set of scenarios that
were requested at the June 7-8, 2007 WQSC meeting. The CMAQ model, a
second generation deterministic community driven model supported by over thirty
air monitoring stations in the watershed, is being used, combined with our
watershed model, to examine air deposition issues.
•	Rich Eskin told the WQSC that Maryland is working on air emission impacts to
water quality and wants to look how to quantify air emission reductions under
Maryland air quality laws as a BMP.
•	Lewis Linker acknowledged this effort and said that they propose to capture these
mandated air emission reductions within each of the jurisdictions' state
implementation plans (SIP). At the June 2007 WQSC meeting, we will bring
forward the full series of base airshed model runs, confirm we are ready to
proceed forward with running the states' SIPs and then discuss how to credit air
emission reductions in reference to the allocations. Also at that time we will have
8

-------
a much better idea of how to quantify agricultural ammonia emissions. We plan to
run the actual state implementation plans when they are submitted to EPA in the
mid-2008 time frame.
•	Bob Yowell commented that he thought the credits should go where the extra
action is taken this seems logical. The rest sounds like an air delivery ratio issue.
•	Lewis Linker responded by saying that it is more complex than this. It is the
transport, deposition and then the processing of those emissions/nutrients in the
landscape that needs to be calculated.
•	Tom Simpson (UMD) stated that although we would like to try to simulate the
reduction at its source, this approach does not lend itself to simple post processing
of who contributed to the reduction in loads ultimately delivered to Bay tidal
waters. As for ammonia, you are dealing with a different deposition pattern than
other nitrogen species atmospheric deposition. With ammonia, you have high
deposition within the first mile or so of the emitter.
•	Beth McGee suggested that state clean cars legislation could be looked at. How
can this be factored into these model scenarios?
•	Ron Entringer asked how the SIPs are accounted for in air models since the SIPs
will change as we near 2008.
•	Lewis Linker informed the WQSC that that air modelers have predicted as best
they can as to what the actual SIP may be like, using the phase 4.3 model; we
estimated an 8 million pound air emission reduction. Reductions under the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and title IV of the Clean Air Act will reduce nitrogen
loads to the Bay through deposition to the coastal ocean, direct deposition, and
riverine influx. The total contribution to air is not going up from what we
previously cited, however, state and federal programs are kicking in and we will
be seeing some additional reductions. Related to Beth McGee's comment, clean
diesel engines will become available and states will be changing their fleets
between now and 2020, and we are also looking at the 2030 trends to see how
population pressures and development fit into our air scenarios. Lewis told the
WQSC that mercury TMDLs will require improved atmospheric modeling and
input data sets that will all benefit our air deposition model simulations. At the
June 2007 WQSC meeting we will want to look at how we will credit air
reductions in our scenarios.
•	Rebecca Hanmer suggested that reforestation projects should be credited in a
similar manner as power plant reductions. The CBP should undertake some
modeling and analysis of how to credit reforestation efforts and programs.
Decisions and Actions
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee confirmed the previously agreed to
sequence of upcoming air emission reduction scenarios and updated the schedule for
running each scenario.
ACTION: The Water Quality Steering requested an analysis of increasing impervious
surface in relation to reductions from air emissions controls to assess the net results on
reductions in air deposited nitrogen loads delivered to Bay tidal waters.
9

-------
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee agreed to discuss crediting air
emission reductions within the overall allocation framework at the June 2007 Steering
Committee meeting.
UPDATE ON CHESAPEAKE BAY SEDIMENTSHEDS:
INITIAL RESULTS AND FUTURE PLANS
Issue
The Nutrient Subcommittee's Sediment Workgroup is completing phase one of its
sedimentsheds effort, and requests the Water Quality Steering Committee's comment and
approval of their approach and initial draft results prior to the early 2007 scientific peer
review.
Briefing Materials
Sediment Sheds
Discussion
•	Lee Curry (MDE) outlined the two step process involved in delineation of
sedimentsheds and highlighted how the sediment workgroup's work plan fits in
with this process. The act of defining sedimentsheds is trying to understand what
is happening at a baywide scale. Phase one is focused developing an
understanding of sediment processes at the Bay scale then segmenting the Bay
and its tidal tributaries according to sediment sources. Some issues being
examined in the process of defining sedimentshed segments are considering areas
that are prone to sea level rise and the effect of the estuarine turbidity maximum
(ETM) and tributary influence. Once all these factors are considered, the process
then moves on to refine the segment scale sources of sediment based on the
available scientific data using the SAV growing season as the baseline for
segmentation. The workgroup's progress to date will be evaluated by STAC and a
panel of experts at a review workshop schedule for late January 2007. The
Sediment Workgroup wants recommendations from the WQSC to help direct the
Sediment Workgroup to refine its proposed phase 2 approach following the STAC
convened review workshop.
•	Bob Yowell asked about the prospect of redoing sediment allocations and what
the schedule for doing this would be.
•	Lee Curry responded that there is no schedule at this time. Whatever the WQSC
decides will direct the Sediment Workgroup's work. It is important to note that
draft sedimentsheds are not yet applicable for management decisions. However,
we are looking for policy people to sit on the STAC expert review to anticipate
the best options for management scenarios. The science is pretty well covered; we
need some help with developing appropriate management tools for sediment.
•	Bruce Michael (MD DNR) commented that the Sediment Workgroup has done
an excellent job analyzing the scientific data. In the future, as management
options are developed it will be important to consider how to use MD DNR's
shallow-water monitoring data, since there is a question of how to analyze this
data to be temporally and spatially significant.
10

-------
•	Lee Currey acknowledged Bruce's comment and told the WQSC that phase two
of the project will take full advantage of the shallow-water monitoring data.
Managing sediments within the sediment sheds is the area we want to move into
and we are looking for guidance from the WQSC as to how best to approach this.
•	Bob Yowell stated that the scientific question remains the same: does the
dissolved oxygen problem outstrip the sediment problem in causing water clarity
problems during the SAV growing season?
•	Ron Entringer responded that it is the WQSC's role to consider things in a
broader ecosystem basis, always asking what effect does restoration of Bay
grasses have in driving the whole ecosystem?
•	Bob Yowell requested to see the science Chuck Gallegos has worked on.
•	Rich Batiuk clarified that the Sediment Workgroup is looking at where sediment
problems interact with efforts to improved dissolved oxygen conditions and how
these both relate to attainment of the states' water clarity criteria.
•	Bob Koroncai asked if the CBP would be able to examine the time required to
address the sediment-related impairmennts.
•	Lewis Linker told Bob that the new model will allow us to look at the time series
and also look at the existing scientific data to make a best guess that it will likely
take decades to centuries to flush out sediment throughout the system. We also
need to look at our current BMPs and their effectiveness in controlling sediment
with our existing systems.
Decisions and Actions
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee approved the refined approach for
Phase one of the sedimentsheds identification, which includes refinement of the
segmentation based on sediment related processes, identifying similar regions of the Bay,
and developing scenarios to better understand sediment transport in the Bay.
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee approved the Sediment
Workgroup's work plan to begin phase two of the sedimentsheds, which includes a more
spatially detailed analysis of clusters resulting from phase one.
ACTION: The Water Quality Steering requested a presentation by Chuck Gallegos on
his work into diagnosing the relative contributions of algae vs. suspended sediments to
reductions in water clarity.
BAYWIDE TMDL ISSUES: TMDL ISSUANCE, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION,
MARGIN OF SAFETY
Briefing Materials
Bavwide TMDL Issues
Bavwide TMDL Issues Part 2
Discussion
•	Diana Esher opened the discussion by saying that jurisdictional representatives
from Pennsylvania reminded the WQSC that in 2005 the PSC decided not declare
11

-------
that the 2010 allocation would not be met and directed the CBP to defer working
towards a Baywide TMDL until a later date. Pennsylvania has pointed out that
there must be a consensus from the PSC secretaries before we have a formalized
TMDL allocation. Since the popular perception is that the 2010 allocation will not
be met and a TMDL will be necessary, EPA has initiated working on the first
steps towards doing this bay TMDL. At this WQSC meeting there will be a frank
discussion among the partners about what is really needed to be in place to be
prepared for a potential TMDL and what the WQSC can bring back to the PSC at
their next meeting regarding the future of a bay TMDL. As of now we will have
new leadership in the PSC that needs to be brought up to date on this issue. We do
not want to present any undo stress on the Bay Program partnership as we move
ahead with planning for a potential TMDL in the future.
•	Alan Pollock remarked that it would be helpful to him if the WQSC closed the
loop on this issue and accurately defined for the PSC what work has begun in
preparing for a Baywide TMDL allocation. He noted that the CBP does not have a
clandestine TMDL workgroup and that it is a public program. Alan's main
concern is that the interpretation by the PSC will not move the process forward,
and will leave us unprepared if a TMDL is necessary. He is upset that the WQSC
has changed direction to what VA has been assuming is the course we all
previously agreed to.
•	Bob Yowell told the WQSC that the reality is that PA is just now publishing its
point source strategy and its trading policy. Pennsylvania does not want to admit
defeat and give up on their tributary strategies' ability to meet their load
allocation by 2010. Admitting defeat would present undue stress on wastewater
treatment facilities and nonpoint sources that are looking to trading as a ray of
hope and an opportunity. Bob expressed concerned that if we admit we won't
meet the 2010 goals people will stop trying.
•	Bob Koroncai requested that the WQSC be rational about this issue, since it takes
a great deal of time and energy to prepare for a TMDL of this magnitude. He
urged the WQSC to consider the proposed TMDL allocation schedule to see what
kind of room there will be if the WQSC decides to put off working on this issue.
•	Peter Gold (EPA) reviewed the schedule for the TMDL. There is a regulatory
requirement for public participation and it is important to get the public involved
and informed about what the realities of a TMDL may be. We anticipate a large
public outreach program. He went through a list of issues and identified critical
path issues.
•	Ron Entringer offered New York's preference for a two stage process, which
includes some public involvement in both stages.
•	Rich Eskin said that Maryland usually does a public data solicitation prior to
working on a TMDL and then releases a notice when a draft TMDL is available
and out for public review.
•	Tom Henry (EPA) told the WQSC that EPA region follows three stage process
for completing a TMDL involves the public in three different phases: even before
they start a TMDL, once they have completed the calibration and verification of
the model, and review of the draft TMDL itself. The whole process would take
place over three years from 2007 to 2009.
12

-------
•	Bob Yowell wanted to avoid calling this a TMDL schedule and even mentioning
the acronym TMDL.
•	Rich Eskin offered the idea that the schedule be revised to describe a refinement
of modeling tools and not necessarily the preparation of a TMDL.
•	Diana Esher suggested that the WQSC bring this issue back to the PSC so that
word smithing does not become the issue.
•	Ron Entringer commented that it does not seem plausible that the partners will
have the time necessary to run all the scenarios necessary to look at specific waste
load allocations for significant sources and nonpoint loads prior to 2010 if we
delay the schedule.
•	Rich Eskin suggested that the WQSC should separate out and schedule separate
allocations to different sources. It seems like we will need to have every scenario
ran well before October 2008.
•	Bob Yowell expressed concern that if the whole Bay allocation changes based on
the new models then the state allocations will change. He is concerned about the
sensitivity of the various variables in the new model.
•	Rich Eskin suggested that the CBP could opt to lock in the current point source
allocations and then handle every remaining source under a new load allocation.
•	Tanya Spano asked if EPA has clarified how MS4 permits will be handled in a
TMDL allocation.
•	Bob Korancai told Tanya that MS4s are considered point sources, but they may
not be significant to the nutrient allocation relative to the sediment allocation. It is
EPA's feeling that if MS4 point sources were discreetly addressed for sediments
loads then they would be listed in a TMDL as such.
•	Rich Eskin requested that the calendar schedule be adjusted to determine where
the CBP is in respect to the 2008 listing.
•	Bob Korancai suggested that a viable option would be to focus on the 2008 listing
as the operative listing. While doing this it may be feasible to use the same
schedule we have for the TMDL and use the model to address waters still listed as
impaired on the 2008 listing. Could we talk about this as not being a TMDL until
the listings are made for 2008? If we think that we have the ability to bottle this
up after the 2008 listing we are foolish.
•	Allan Pollock agreed with this approach, but recommended continuing the prep
work on a potential 2010 TMDL. The CBP needs to seek agreement from the PSC
that a 2008 listing would form the basis for declaration of the need for a Bay
TMDL. We have been supporting the idea of a TMDL by May 1, 2010 in Virginia
and we can't afford to stop talking about it.
•	Bob Yowell said that it would be better to keep the schedule, ignore the C2K
2010 water quality goal and push back the TMDL date a year to give some more
breathing room to the whole process.
•	Rich Eskin said that his concern about doing something as drastic as this is that
the partnership has invested a great deal of time and money into the technical
aspects of the CBP models specifically to do the TMDL, it seems counter intuitive
to what we have decided in the budget process. We also need to allow ample time
for public comment. Rich asked to go on record as saying that Maryland does not
13

-------
want to delay the technical side of preparing for a TMDL as they have direct
implications for conducting their local TMDLs.
•	Bob Yowell recommended that the WQSC bring this issue back to the PSC at
their first meeting in 2007. If EPA's Regional Administrator called PA DEP
Secretary Katie McGinty about this issue, there may be an opportunity to get
some agreement on this issue prior to the PSC meeting.
•	Bob Koroncai said that the real issue to address is whether or not the TMDL
Workgroup should carry on.
•	Rich Eskin suggested that the TMDL Workgroup could suspend activities for the
next five months leading up to a spring 2007 PSC meeting.
Decisions and Actions
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee decided to provide the PSC with a
detailed briefing on the 2008 303(d) listing and the implications for a potential 2010
TMDL and request their decision on how to proceed from here. The Steering Committee
requested that further work by the TMDL Workgroup be stopped until we receive
different direction from the PSC.
ACTION: Diana Esher will talk to Don Welsh and see if he can talk with each state's
secretaries in advance of the next PSC meeting.
UPDATE ON EFFORTS TO REVISE BMP EFFICIENCIES FOR CREDIT IN
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED MODEL AND TRIBUTARY
STRATEGIES
Issue
During year one of the project, the scope of work requires a focus on existing BMPs
needing evaluation and further peer-review for nutrient and sediment reduction
efficiencies prior to their use in final calibration of Phase 5 of the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model. In year two, the focus will be on developing definitions and
efficiencies for new BMPs credited in jurisdictional strategies and certain additional
practices that have not gone through recent CBP approval.
Materials
BMP Project Status
Discussion
•	Sarah Weammert (UMD MAWP) outlined the process for reviewing BMP
efficiencies. Step one is a scientific data search on BMPs and a literature review.
Step two is an interview process. Step three is development of the practice
definition and efficiencies that includes a demonstration and field tour of
practices. In June 2008, the Mid-Atlantic Water Quality Program we will present
the final documentation for approval.
•	Tom Simpson (UMD MAWP) said that the decisions on the recommended
revised BMP efficiencies needs to be made by a more senior management group
than the Nutrient Subcommittee. We have to figure out some way to make it
14

-------
comparable to do the relative ranking of BMPs. We will not hold up the final
calibration of the Phase 5 watershed model.
•	Rebecca Hanmer remarked that she thinks framing this particular project in terms
of innovative agriculture and urban practices is important. However, at the same
time we are doing literature reviews and revising the BMPs, she is working to get
federal agency partners agreement to establish a BMP academy to help accelerate
implementation of BMPs on the ground.
Decisions and Actions
ACTION: Tom Simpson will present the revised BMP efficiencies to Pennsylvania
colleagues.
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee expressed strong support for the
BMP efficiencies project and approved the presented two-year schedule.
ACTION: The Water Quality Steering Committee strongly encouraged the member
jurisdictional representatives: to provide scientific, peer reviewed articles that relate to
BMP efficiencies to the Mid-Atlantic Water Quality Program; help identify potential
experts and knowledgeable federal, state, and local agency staff; and ask the Nutrient
Subcommittee, the Tributary Strategy Workgroup and the Subcommittee's source area
workgroup representatives to assist in the review of the practice definitions and
efficiencies.
DECISION: The Mid-Atlantic Water Quality Program will bring the results of year one
and year two work back for approval by the Water Quality Steering Committee in June
2007 and June 2008, respectively.
ACTION: CBPO staff will schedule a conference call to update Water Quality Steering
Committee members on the ongoing efforts and the overall schedule for resolving long
standing BMP tracking and reporting issues among the CBP partners.
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATER QUALITY CRITERIA ADDENDUM: OVERVIEW
OF REVIEW PROCESS, SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND REMAINING
ISSUES
Issue
Based on the parallel Chesapeake Bay Program partner/stakeholder and STAC
independent scientific peer reviews, a number of significant comments have been raised
by the partners, stakeholders and peer reviewers.
Briefing Materials
Bay Criteria Significant Issues
Discussion
•	Rich Batiuk reviewed the process undertaken to date to draft the Bay criteria
addendum. The draft criteria addendum has undergone parallel Bay Program
15

-------
partners/stakeholders review and an independent scientific peer review (convened
by STAC). The recommendations presented are in response to a compilation of
the most significant scientific peer review comments and feedback from the
partners/stakeholders reviews. The goals are to ensure consistency between all
four jurisdictions with Bay tidal waters and provide the partners with the needed
criteria attainment assessment methods to fully assess attainment of all adopted
criteria for all tidal water designated uses.
Decisions and Actions
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee agreed to continue to work out the
remaining unresolved issues and procedures through the established groups—CAP
Workgroup and Chlorophyll Criteria Team—with those groups bringing forward
recommendations for final resolution to the Steering Committee for final decisions via
upcoming scheduled conference calls.
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee agreed to the revised schedule
leading to final partner approval of the Bay criteria addendum followed by EPA
publication by the end of March 2007.
DRAFT CHESAPEAKE BAY CHLOROPHYLL A CRITERIA (CHAPTER 2):
SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDED RESOLUTIONS
Issue
A series of decisions are required to move forward from here on publication of guidance
on how the jurisdictions should address chlorophyll a within the context of future
assessments of the quality of the Chesapeake Bay's tidal waters.
Briefing Materials
Chapter Two
Discussion
Issues 1-6
•	Rich Batiuk reviewed the outline for chapter two and the issues raised in the
partners/stakeholders comments received and the STAC peer review. The
chlorophyll a criteria were derived to protect the open-water fish and shellfish
designated use. Numerous comments were submitted raising strong concerns
about the lack of a clear use attainment connection between the historical
concentration-based criteria and specific aquatic life use impairments. Program
partner, stakeholders and peer reviewers also raised questions about the water
clarity-based chlorophyll a criteria and its duplication of the existing state adopted
water clarity criteria. Where we have the clearest, quantitative connection
between algal-related human health and aquatic life impairments and chlorophyll
a concentrations are summer blue green harmful algal blooms in tidal fresh and
low salinity habitats.
•	Beth McGee commented that the independent peer reviewers said the historical
16

-------
concentration-based approach was ok, but express concerns regarding the time
frame of data that was used in criteria derivation—the 1960s and 1970—versus
the 1950s, the time period before severe ecological impairments became
predominant throughout the bay. Beth was concerned that if the states only adopt
the harmful algal bloom-based chlorophyll a criterion, it will be restricted to only
a few areas of the Bay and not cover the whole Bay.
•	Jim Keating (EPA) clarified the terminology for the Steering Committee.
Criteria are those values which have a clear, quantitative connection with
protection of the defined designated uses (aquatic life, human health). Guidance
values are derived for those cases where there is not as strong of a quantitative
connection between the concentration values and protection of the designated
uses. Such guidance values can also be published by EPA and used by the states
in interpreting their narrative standards, for example.
•	John Schneider suggested that the published chlorophyll a guidance values would
also be useful as endpoints in the states' development of TMDLs for local tidal
waterbodies.
•	Chris Day said that the Chesapeake Bay Program partners originally chose
dissolved oxygen, water clarity, and chlorophyll a as the appropriate Chesapeake
Bay water quality criteria, in place of nutrient concentration criteria, because we
wanted nutrient enrichment measures that had the most direct connections to
protecting the tidal waters designated uses.
•	Bob Yowell said that he did not understand why chlorophyll a could not continue
to be applied as a narrative criterion.
•	Bob Koroncai suggested that dissolved oxygen is a great way of understanding
how the nutrient impacts affect the Bay's health, but can't stand alone as the
single criterion to fully assess the Bay's health.
•	Beth McGee noted that it is CBF's goal to hold the WQSC accountable to adopt
the full suite of criteria necessary to fully protect the Chesapeake Bay's living
resources.
Issue 7
•	Peter Tango reviewed the impacts of harmful algal blooms and the process used
to derive harmful algal bloom-based chlorophyll a criteria. A chlorophyll a
concentration of 25 ug/L has been documented as the level above which human
uses are not support. This chlorophyll a concentration represents microcystis cell
counts greater than 50,000 cells/ml which, in turn, are correlated with 10 ug/L of
microcystin toxin.
•	Rich Eskin asked if the WQSC could restate the criteria to state that whenever
there is a chlorophyll a excess of 27 ug/L in tidal fresh and oligohaline areas, then
cell counts would be taken to determine if microcystis cell counts are greater than
50,000 cells/ml, levels associated with unacceptable human health risks in a
recreational setting. Rich felt that the cell count is more important than the
measurement of micrograms per liter of chlorophyll a.
Issue 8
•	Back in at the June 2006 Steering Committee meeting, the WQSC agreed to move
17

-------
ahead with "option C" to proceed further with publication of chlorophyll a
criteria.
•	Bob Yowell said that this approach does not follow the perspective he heard the
WQSC express today.
•	Bob Koroncai noted that this is all about nutrient controls. If we adopt a
microcystin-based criterion, we may need to discuss how we can establish
nutrient loading caps to attain this type of criterion.
•	Alan Pollock expressed concerns over the CBP's abilities to effectively define the
areas where algal related impairments are expected to persist after attaining
dissolved oxygen and water clarity criteria.
•	Rich Eskin said that chlorophyll a criteria should not be published in the
addendum at this time, but that this is important work and that this work should
continue.
•	Jim Keating added that it is not impossible for EPA to conclude that this criterion
does not need to be folded into the state regulatory system right after publication
so that it could be published as guidance for adoption at a later time.
•	Chris Day added that even without adopting numerical chlorophyll a criteria, the
states have already adopted narrative chlorophyll criteria into their standards so
that states can make decisions about impairments through some type of
quantitative interpretation of their narrative criteria.
•	Bruce Michael told the WQSC that MD's monitoring program is sufficient to
capture algal impairments during peak periods.
•	Bob Yowell recommended that Peter Tango help define an appropriate indicator
for algal impairments before proceeding with publishing the criteria.
•	Ron Entringer commented that New York is looking at this issue for all of its
water bodies including Long Island Sound. The Chesapeake Bay Chlorophyll a
criteria are setting precedence and New York is relatively leery about setting up
these criteria at such a high level.
DECISIONS
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee agreed to publish the final set of
historical reference condition-based chlorophyll a concentrations as a set of guidance
values, but not as numerical criteria.
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee agreed with the STAC peer review
and their finding that the quantitative linkages between dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll
a concentrations did not support the derivation of numerical criteria.
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee agreed to publish the final set of
water clarity-based chlorophyll a concentrations as a set of guidance values, but not as
numerical criteria.
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee approved moving forward with
publishing harmful algal bloom-based numerical criteria for the tidal fresh and
oligohaline waters of the Bay addressing summer Microcystis blooms. The Steering
Committee charged the Chlorophyll Criteria Team with responsibility for factoring the
18

-------
concerns and recommendations voiced by the Steering Committee members into revised
set of harmful algal bloom-based criteria recommendations.
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee agreed to not proceed forward with
"option C". The Steering Committee charged the Chlorophyll Criteria Team with
responsibility for developing a protocol that clearly defined how the states would use the
collective set of chlorophyll a concentration, Microcystis cell count and microcystin toxin
concentration data in assessing open-water use attainment.
ACTION: The Chlorophyll Criteria Team will present its revised set of recommended
criteria and proposed criteria attainment assessment procedures to the Water Quality
Steering Committee for review and approval for publication at an upcoming WQSC
conference call in the January/February 2007 timeframe.
CFD APPROACH TO CRITERIA ATTAINMENT ASSESSMENT (CHAPTER 3):
SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDED RESOLUTIONS
ISSUE
A series of decisions are required to move forward on publication of guidance on
refinements to existing criteria attainment assessment procedures now adopted into state
water quality standards regulations.
MATERIALS
Chapter Three
DISCUSSION
•	Elgin Perry reviewed the Cumulative Frequency Diagram approach to criteria
attainment assessment and presented the STAC Expert Review Panel's findings
and recommendations. The CFD approach is a statistical tool for estimating
portions of a Bay segment not in compliance with the applicable criteria. The
expert panel viewed its charge to determine if the CFD approach represents the
best available science. The panel found shortfalls with the existing interpolation
method (inverse distance weighting) which has greater uncertainty than the CFD
approach. STAC reviewed the CFD approach and found it to be fair, accountable,
simple, and widely accepted.
•	Monior Chowdbury (DC DOE) asked if the panel looked at varying the amount of
cells per segment to improve the certainty in the interpolation.
•	Elgin Perry responded that they did not look at this, but that this may be a good
option to look at.
•	Rich Eskin asked if these recommended improvements to the statistical evaluation
of the CFD results will be able to be included in the next listing cycle in 2008.
•	Elgin Perry responded that the procedures will not be operational by 2008, but
should available for use in 2010.
•	Rich Batiuk confirmed that we are not in a position to apply the recommended
19

-------
statistical evaluation procedures in the near term for any use impairment decision
making as the procedures have not been defined nor fully evaluated. However, if
the partners are comfortable with pursuing the STAC recommendations for using
this approach in the future, then such a set of procedures could likely be used in
the 2010 listing cycle and beyond.
•	Bob Yowell asked if this improvement in the science is worth the money.
•	Rich Eskin stated that he was also wondering about the cost-benefit of using this
new approach, because it seems like we are collecting data that we are not using.
He recommended we set some date by which we have the methodology in place
that would allow us to fully use all our data, or we should go to using some new
method for analysis.
•	Steve Preston (USGS) said that the issue is certainty in the assessment method,
not our inability to use all the available data. For example, we will use much of
the collected shallow-water monitoring data in the upcoming 2008 listing cycle.
Decisions and Actions
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee agreed to support follow-up work
in the next several years on the recommendations laid out in the STAC expert panel's
report to increase the certainty in making future attainment/non-attainment
(listing/delisting) decisions and fully utilize all available data.
ACTION: The Water Quality Steering Committee charged the chapter 3 lead authors
with responsibility for shortening and reorganizing the chapter text to focus strictly on the
criteria attainment assessment methodology changes being recommended now for
adoption into the states' water quality standards regulations.
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee agreed to publish the guidance
within the 2007 Bay criteria addendum that any excursion of the CFD reference curve be
considered non-attainment in the final Bay criteria addendum. This decision is fully
consistent with how criteria attainment assessments were conducted during the 2006
303(d) listing cycle,
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CRITERIA ASSESSMENT (CHAPTER 5):
SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDED RESOLUTIONS
Issue
A series of decisions are required to move forward on here on publication of guidance on
refinements to existing dissolved oxygen criteria attainment assessment procedures now
adopted into state water quality standards regulations.
Briefing Materials
Chapter Five
Discussion
•	Allan Pollock remarked that after 30 years of the clean water act, we still have a
hard time differentiating between anthropogenic and naturally occurring problems
20

-------
with dissolved oxygen.
•	Bob Yowell expressed that he has been worried that the instantaneous minimum
would be a difficult criteria to meet consistently. It seems that there needs to be
some sort of decision rule.
•	In response to a prior recommendation that monitoring program field crews
should collect additional samples if a violation of the instantaneous minimum
dissolved oxygen criteria was recorded at a station, Beth McGee commented that
she did not think field staff should arbitrarily pick where to sample in such a
situation. Undertaking such additional sampling seems to bias the sampling and
makes it more complicated to communicate to the public.
•	Bob Koroncai remarked that the impact of instantaneous minimum on the listing
cycle is that it is pretty consistent with our actual listings. He expressed concerns
that assessing attainment of the instantaneous minimum could have a large impact
on our allocations.
•	Steve Preston said that it seems like logistic regression is the best method to
assess the instantaneous minimum because we can't put buoys everywhere.
•	Joe Beaman said that so much is riding on the instantaneous minimum that he
recommended advocating more resources be invested in monitoring to assess its
attainment.
•	Rich Eskin followed saying that it seems the WQSC is making decision based on
one data point and we are openly admitting that this data point may not be
representative of the entire segment.
•	Gary Shenk said that application of a reference curve makes sense, but that this is
counter to what STAC recommends.
•	Lee Curry suggested with the one criteria that seems to work well being the 30
day mean—it is consistent in both shallow and deep water—but the instantaneous
minimum criteria seems to generate a great deal of problems.
•	Jim Keating said that for something like dissolved oxygen, where we are really
managing long term inputs of nutrients into the system, it seems like that if you
are managing for the 30-day average criteria, you are also managing for all of the
other criteria components. If the instantaneous is really a two hour average, then
you can make a case for no assessment because you are relying on one data
point—resampling and data shopping is not the way to go.
•	Bob Yowell advocated to stop the January monitoring cruise and to use the
resources saved to collect more data during the summer.
•	Joe Beaman asked if the Monitoring and Analysis Subcommittee could examine a
probabilistic approach to monitoring to address the questions raised about
representativeness of individual samples.
•	Diana Esher summarized the discussion to this point by stating that the WQSC
could either continue to struggle with defining an agreement on the method to be
used in assessing attainment of the open water and deep water instantaneous
minimum dissolved oxygen criteria, or the WQSC could give clear directions to
the CAP workgroup and the analytical team working on the two methodologies as
to what to pursue and what not to pursue.
Decisions and Actions
21

-------
DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee decided to strictly rely on the
assessment of the 30-day mean dissolved oxygen criteria for making listing decisions.
For those designated use-segments where the 30-day mean criteria are determined to be
in attainment, then the jurisdiction will take steps to generate additional data and apply
the available attainment assessment procedures to assess attainment of the instantaneous
minimum criterion.
ACTION: The Water Quality Steering Committee charged the CAP Workgroup and the
existing supporting CBP analytical team to complete their work on the methodologies for
assessing attainment of the 1-day to 7-day mean dissolved oxygen criteria. The Steering
Committee recognized that procedures for assessing attainment of the 1-day and 7-day
criteria will not be ready for publication in the forthcoming Bay criteria addendum.
When available, the CAP Workgroup will present its recommended attainment
assessment procedure to the Steering Committee for review and final approval.
NEXT WATER QUALITY STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
DECISION: The next Water Quality Steering Committee meeting will be scheduled for
June 2007, with the hosting jurisdiction to be determined.
ACTION: Any jurisdiction interested in hosting the next Steering Committee meeting
should contact Diana Esher or Rich Batiuk.
ACTION: CBPO staff will finalize the draft January-May 2007 schedule of Steering
Committee conference calls and distribute the schedule to all members.
Participants:
Bruce Michael - MD DNR
Chris Day - EPA Region III
Rich Eskin - MDE
Joe Beaman - MDE
Lee Currey - MDE
Ann Swanson - CBC
Pat Stuntz - CBC
Moira Croghan - VA DCR
Russ Perkinson - VA DCR
Jeff Sweeney - UMD CBPO
Brian Kittler - CRC CBPO
Matt Monroe - WV DO A
Bill Brannon - WV DEP
Rich Batiuk - EPA CBPO
Diana Esher - EPA CBPO
John Schneider - DNREC
Beth McGee - CBF
Bob Yowell - PA DEP
Pat Buckley - PA DEP
Monir Chowdhury - DC DOE
Carlton Haywood - ICPRB
Ron Entringer - NY DEC
Lewis linker - EPA CBPO
Peter Claggett - USGS/CBPO
Chris Pyke - CBP STAC/CTG
Energetics
Clifton Belle - Malcom Price
Will Hunley - HRSD
Tanya Spano - MWCOG
Gary Shenk - EPA CBPO
Keely Clifford - EPA BPO
Tom Johnson - EPA ORD
Bob Korancai - EPA R3
Alan Pollock - VA DEQ
Tom Henry - EPA R3
Peter Gold - EPA R3
Steve Preston - USGS
Larry Merrill - EPA R3
22

-------
Peter Tango - MD DNR
Sarah Weammert - UMD MAWP
Rebecca Hanmer - EPA CBPO
Jim Keating - EPA HQ OW
Denise Hakowski - EPA R3

-------