Chesapeake Bay Program Reevaluation Technical Workgroup Conference Call August 14, 2008 SUMMARY OF DECISIONS, ACTIONS AND ISSUES Revised Bay TMDL Schedule At the June PSC meeting, the partnership was directed to accelerate the Bay TMDL process by several months to complete it by December 2010. Jennifer Sincock revised the schedule, while leaving the modeling portion intact, to be completed by the end of 2010. See Attachments A and B. ¦ Lewis Linker pointed out that the analyses and decision-making that we need to do in the TMDL process is an elastic process, that can be done quickly or take the years depending on how long we let it span out. ¦ Reevaluation Technical Workgroup members said that they would not be starting public meetings this month, as indicated on the schedule. o Members generally agreed that they do not want to go to the public with a TMDL announcement until they can say exactly what is being done and that is not possible yet. ¦ The Phase 5 calibration was one month behind schedule, and 5.1 will be delivered September 9th. The Water Quality Sediment Transport Model will be delivered in September. Overall, the final model calibrations are a few months behind but the lost time will be made up during the scenario analysis time period. ¦ The Reevaluation Technical Workgroup and Water Quality Steering Committee will begin to look at confirming refined N, P, and sediment allocations to meet water quality standards this September and October. o Lewis Linker believes the timeframe for lines 17 and 18 are appropriate. ACTION: The start date for partners to host public meetings will be changed to a later date on the Bay TMDL timeline. DECISION: The Reevaluation Technical Workgroup agreed to forward the revised Bay TMDL schedule to the Water Quality Steering Committee for their review and approval, with the understanding that the schedule will be changed as needed. Revised Bay TMDL Report Outline: Follow-up to May 27, 20008 Call With Tetra Tech's assistance, Jennifer has revised the TMDL report outline based on comments from the May Reevaluation Technical Workgroup meeting. The revised TMDL report outline can be found on Attachment C. ¦ Nauth Panday suggested that Tetra Tech begin writing chapters 1 through 3 ahead of schedule because that would help to formulate the scope of the TMDL for the public meetings. ¦ Nauth Panday thinks that the report is still too long. ------- o Jennifer and Mike Haire pointed out that each section does not need to be very detailed but rather a brief overview of the section, with more details in appendices and supplementary manuscripts if necessary. ¦ Section 6.11 will include a detailed explanation of TMDL = WLA + LA + margin of safety. ¦ Pat Buckley stated that Pennsylvania supports receiving only a boundary allocation and has not yet agreed to the development of a sediment cap load. Pennsylvania does not support the sediment cap load or divisions into load allocations in their state. ¦ The jurisdictions are asked to revise their Tributary Strategies at the same time as the establishment of the TMDL. ¦ Carl Cerco, Lewis Linker, and Tetra Tech will be the leads for Section 5.5. ¦ Mike Haire suggested adding Jim Curtin to the report's reasonable assurance discussion in section 8. ¦ John Kennedy is not sure whether or not the background and programmatic information is necessary in the report, as it goes well above and beyond the EPA requirements. o Jennifer understands the information is not necessary but will be helpful context. ¦ Pennsylvania is concerned about section 9.3 that calls for putting adaptive implementation strategy into the TMDL. o Jennifer said that we will discuss this as we move forward. ¦ Jennifer and Tetra Tech will set a deadline for the first 3 sections of the report to be drafted by Tetra Tech. ¦ Lewis suggested that we review draft sections over conference calls as they are written. ACTION: Reevaluation Technical Workgroup members will let Jennifer Sincock know if they, or someone they know, can take the lead on one or more of the sections in the outline. DECISION: The Reevaluation Technical Workgroup agreed with the revised TMDL report outline, with the understanding that it may continue to be revised. Allocation of CSO and SSO Loads and Model Representation of These Loads Lewis Linker put together some strawman options for handling CSO and SSO loads in the Bay TMDL allocations for Reevaluation Technical Workgroup consideration. See Attachment D. ¦ Only DC has provided CSO loading information to the Bay Program. It does not appear that CSO and SSO loads are available in the rest of the watershed. ¦ CSOs and SSOs are not permissible dischargers but may still illegally release loads under certain circumstances. ¦ Maryland does not want SSO allocations under any circumstances and likewise for CSOs except for in the city of Cumberland which will be the only remaining CSO. ¦ Jennifer would like to know states' CSO policies in order to inform the decision- making process for CSO allocations. ------- ¦ Maryland and other states have long-term control plans that will essentially eliminate CSO loads in the next few years. ¦ Virginia has 3 CSOs in the Bay watershed. Their nutrient contribution is relatively small. They are tied up in permits and do have concentration-based water quality WLAs for nitrogen. Considering the magnitude of the impact, VA is trying to decide whether to assign individual allocations or aggregate allocations. ¦ CAFOs, CSOs, and other minor point sources could potentially be lumped together into an allocation using some basic calculations. ACTION: Reevaluation Technical Workgroup members should submit text to Lewis Linker regarding how their states handle their CSO and SSO loads. The information will be used to capture the different approaches used by the jurisdictions. DECISION: CSO and SSO loads will not be explicitly simulated in the TMDL models but will be included in WLAs through NPDES permits. Reasonable Assurance Workgroup Update Katherine Antos updated the Reevaluation Technical Workgroup on the Reasonable Assurance Workgroup which was formed out of the June PSC meeting. ¦ The Reasonable Assurance Workgroup's goal is to create recommendations to the PSC for what reasonable assurance provisions in the TMDL should entail. ¦ The Workgroup has met twice so far this summer. On August 19th, the Workgroup will have an all day face-to-face meeting. ¦ At the August 19th meeting, the Workgroup will discuss: EPA's understanding of reasonable assurance, whether reasonable assurance should include an evaluation of the ability to implement the TMDL, the need for a gap analysis of funding sources, how the partnership can fill the gaps in the gap analysis, how to measure progress, and the Reasonable Assurance Workgroup's role in the discussions about the scale of the allocations. ¦ Ron Entringer and Pat Buckley asked EPA to invite headwater states to be members of the Reasonable Assurance Workgroup. Next Reevaluation Technical Workgroup Conference Call Topics: TBD Participants Jennifer Sincock Sara Parr Lewis Linker Felix Locicero Mike Haire Hassan Mirsajadi Charles Martin EPA Region 3 CRC/CBPO EPA/CBPO EPA Region 2 EPA HQ DEDNREC VADEQ sincock.i ennifer@epa. gov sparr@chesapeakebav.net llinker@chesapeakebav.net locicero.felix@epa.gov haire.michael@epa.gov mirsajadi.hassan@state.de.us chmartin@deq .Virginia, gov ------- Arthur Butt VADEQ aibutt(3),deq .Virginia, gov John Kennedy VADEQ i mkennedv(S),dea .Virginia, gov Ed Reilly NY DEC exreillv(S),gw.dec.state.nv.us Ron Entringer NY DEC raentrinfo), gw. dec. state. nv. us Pat Buckley PA DEP pbucklevfS),state.pa.us Bill Brown PA DEP willbrownfo),state.pa.us Nauth Panday MDE npandav(S),mde.state.md.us Dinorah Dalmasy MDE ddalmasv(S),mde.state.md.us Tom Thornton MDE tthornton(a),mde. state.md.us Robin Pellicano MDE rDellicano(a),mde. state.md.us Dave Montali WV DEP dmontali(3),wvdep. org Monir Chowdhury DDOE Monir. chowdhurv(3),dc. gov Clint Boschen Tetra Tech clint.boschenfo), tetratech-ffx.com Andrew Parker Tetra Tech andrew. Darker®,tetratech-ffx. com Katherine Antos EPA antos.katherine@epa.gov ------- |