Watershed Technical Workgroup Minutes June 2, 2008 Highlights and Action Items ACTION: The Workgroup will discuss alternative reporting options and make a decision for next year's Health and Restoration Report. ACTION: Jeff will run a variety of all-forest scenarios and no-BMP scenarios, present them to the Workgroup, and then the Workgroup will identify the disparities and make a decision. ACTION: Workgroup members will contact Scott Phillips with feedback for effectively running test case scenarios. ACTION: Olivia Devereux will send Bill Keeling the link to the FTP site on which Phase 5.0 inputs are posted. ACTION: Bill Keeling will lead a task group to develop recommendations for adjusting BMPs based on storm intensity. Handouts and Presentations ¦ Agenda ¦ Support of Bay-Wide TMDL Development - Presentation by Jeff Sweeney ¦ Chesapeake Bay Program Restoration Indicators - Presentation by Jeff Sweeney ¦ Chesapeake Online Assessment Support Tools - Presentation by Scott Phillips, USGS ¦ BMP Adjustments in Phase 5 Watershed Model I. Welcome, Introductions, and Announcements ¦ Jeff Sweeney welcomed everyone to the meeting and initiated introductions. ¦ Jeff introduced Bill Keeling, VA DCR, as the new chair of the Watershed Technical Workgroup. ¦ Bill Keeling asked the Workgroup to start reviewing and approving the minutes of all meetings to ensure accurate documentation of decisions. II. Bay Program Restoration Indicators Jeff Sweeney presented the restoration indicators that the Watershed Technical Workgroup is responsible for reviewing. His presentation is available at http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/TSWG 06-02- 08 Presentation 2 9155.pdf. ¦ There is one indicator for each source sector, and this group is to review all of the sector indicators. ¦ The pollution reduction indicators for 2007 can be found at http://www.chesapeakebav.net/status reducingpollution.aspx?menuitem=19691. ¦ With all sources combined, we are at 47% of our goal for nitrogen, 62% for phosphorus, and 64% for sediment. ------- ¦ Decreasing agricultural land and increasing urban land plays a part in the higher percent of goal achieved for agriculture and negative percent of goal achieved for urban. ¦ The restoration assessment includes a geographic depiction of percent of goal achieved and percent responsibility by state-basin. o Bill Keeling would like to see dividing geographically by model segmentation level. Jeff said that he could produce this but that not all jurisdictions tracked implementation at the segment level. ¦ The Workgroup will continue to discuss alternative reporting options in time to make a decision for next year's Health and Restoration Report. ¦ The Monitoring and Analysis Subcommittee is developing new methods of measuring trends, so the monitoring data and tracking tools will change over the next few years. ¦ Kenn Pattison, PA DEP, suggested that we keep 1985 as a baseline but say in the text that 1985 includes growth. This would represent a higher initial starting point of about 10%. We're underestimating our credit by staying at 1985. ACTION: The Workgroup will discuss alternative reporting options and make a decision for next year's Health and Restoration Report. III. Support for the Water Quality Steering Committee, Reevaluation Technical Workgroup and Development of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Jeff Sweeney presented information to the Workgroup about how they will be responsible for assisting in the Bay TMDL development with the Water Quality Steering Committee and Reevaluation Technical Workgroup. His presentation is available at http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/TSWG 06-02- 08 Presentation 1 9155.pdf. ¦ The Water Quality Steering Committee and their Reevaluation Technical Workgroup are developing the Bay TMDL. The Bay model will be used to develop the TMDL, so this Workgroup will need to assist in its development. ¦ Some of the tasks the Watershed Technical Workgroup will be responsible for include technically reviewing Phase 5 of Watershed Model inputs, developing methodology for TMDL load allocations, and identifying scenarios for Bay TMDL model runs. ¦ Phase 5.0 is only a temporary development version. Phase 5.1 will be developed by July and will include a 12 km CMAQ grid, thousands of small point sources, and improved validation methods. ¦ Immediate tasks that need the Workgroup's attention include TMDL load allocations and determining methods and a spatial scale for sub-allocating nutrient and sediment caps. ¦ The scenario development task will include a no-BMP scenario and an all-forest scenario. o The all-forest scenario is a model simulation of what nutrient and sediment loads might occur if the entire watershed was forested. This scenario is thought to help characterize naturally occurring pollutants and help with equity amongst the jurisdictions. ------- o The no-BMP scenario is a "what-if' scenario of watershed conditions without managed controls on load sources. ¦ Kenn Pattison warned the group not to go too far out with the land use year for the no-BMP scenario because it would cause problems if strategies are written for land use that is not currently in place, such as if the no-BMP scenario was based on 2030 land use. ¦ Allocation development and possible ramifications to MS4's was discussed. Many of the tasks the workgroup face in regard to implementation tiers and other allocation development support depend on pending decisions of the Water Quality Steering Committee, Reevaluation Technical Workgroup, and or EPA Region 3. Specifically clearly defining the critical condition the TMDL modeling must address, and the technical process of allocation development for the impaired tidal segments and areas draining to them. ¦ Default values are needed for point source concentrations under the no-BMP scenario. o Kenn Pattison does not think a year should be assigned to point sources for the scenario. A no-BMP condition does not mean a starting point. Point sources are not land use-driven like nonpoint sources are. o Kenn Pattison also suggested compartmentalizing many of the tasks the workgroup was facing. Such as those associated with the TMDL development verses implementation scenarios and development of formal implementation plans as 3 distinct efforts. ACTION: Jeff will run a variety of all-forest scenarios and no-BMP scenarios, present them to the Workgroup, and then the Workgroup will identify the disparities and make a decision. IV. COAST Update and Future Plans Scott Phillips, USGS, presented an update on the Chesapeake Online Assessment Support Tools (COAST). His presentation is available at http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/TSWG 06-02- 08 Presentation 3 9155.pdf. ¦ Scott Phillips would like some members of the Workgroup to go through test cases of COAST. ¦ COAST is a series of internet-enabled decision support tools for enhancing implementation. ¦ COAST components and tools are meant to: o Assess problems and help decide actions o select areas to enhance actions ¦ show spatial yields with a Spatial Yields Mapper o Test scenarios ¦ use the CBP Watershed Model and Vortex to test management scenarios o Monitor change and assess progress ¦ help evaluate effectiveness ------- o Evaluate factors and adjust actions ¦ USGS plans to release Version 1.0 of COAST in the fall of this year. ¦ COAST test cases will be done this year. Test cases include: o Identifying priority watersheds for agricultural actions o Nontidal water quality workgroup o Tributary Strategy basins and workgroup ¦ Future directions include improving usability, linking to more tools, economic analyses, and test cases. ¦ Scott asked the Workgroup if there was a test case that this Workgroup would be interested in running. o Kenn Pattison said that although some counties would use COAST, many won't because they cannot handle additional responsibilities, o Peter Freehafer does not think that counties in New York would find must utility in the tool because they are too busy with their other work, o The Workgroup suggested working with Juniata County and the Choptank River watershed. o Alana Hartman said that with the TMDL's possibility of county caps, WV may be interested in using these tools. ACTION: Workgroup members will contact Scott Phillips with feedback for effectively running test case scenarios. V. Vortex Update Olivia Devereux, UMD, provided an update on the development of Vortex. ¦ Vortex is one tool that fits under the umbrella of COAST. ¦ It was developed to put inputs into the Watershed Model and to help people look at different scenarios for doing strategic implementation plans. ¦ Vortex allows users to change BMPs, where they are applied, how they are applied, change land uses, etc. to test what happens to loading and the land. ¦ Bill Keeling would like to see the inputs in Phase 5.0, even though there are errors, to compare to the inputs for Phase 5.1. ¦ Bill was concerned that we need more clarity on manure handling. ¦ Karl Berger, COG, said that when they ran no-BMP and BMP scenarios in Vortex in Prince William County, there was no difference. o Jeff explained that the model would show a difference; Vortex just is not able to show that yet. ACTION: Olivia Devereux will send Bill Keeling the link to the FTP site on which Phase 5.0 inputs are posted. VI. Varying Nonpoint Source Practice Effectiveness with Storm Intensity Bill Keeling talked to the Workgroup about developing BMP adjustments to vary effectiveness estimates with storm intensity. ------- ¦ BMPs are designed to function up to a certain storm event. Russ Mader previously proposed a 10% increase in BMP efficiency with a 0-5 year storm, no change for a 5- 15 year storm, 70% of the BMP efficiency with a 16-50 year storm, and 30% of the BMP efficiency for a 51+ year storm. ¦ VA DCR was not comfortable with adding to the efficiency for 0-5 year storms, so they proposed keeping the efficiency the same for 0-5 years and decreasing from there. ¦ The Workgroup would use the Mid-Atlantic Regional Water Program's BMP effectiveness estimates as the baseline for applying the efficiency reductions based on the weather. ¦ Another concern with BMP adjustments is maximum implementation levels. o Kenn Pattison said that he uses 90% as a maximum level for BMPs reported in Pennsylvania. o Jeff Sweeney ensures no state has over 100% implementation. o MDA regularly reports over 90% implementation for certain BMPs so they would likely not accept a maximum implementation cut-off. ¦ Jeff Sweeney encouraged Workgroup members to communicate to their Water Quality Steering Committee representatives that all new data needs to be submitted to the model. ACTION: Bill Keeling will lead a task group to develop recommendations for adjusting BMPs based on storm intensity. Participants Bill Keeling VA DCR William, keeling®, dcr.virginia.gov Jeff Sweeney UMD/CBPO i sweenev®,chesapeakebav.net Sara Parr CRC/CBPO soarr (a), chesaoeakebav.net Robin Pellicano MDE rpellicano(a),mde. state, md. us Karl Berger MWCOG kb er ger(3),mwcog. org Olivia Devereux UMD/CBPO devereux(a),umd. edu Kenn Pattison PA DEP kDattisonfo),state.pa.us Larry Fender VA DCR larrv.fender®, dcr.virginia.gov John Wolf NPS i wolffo),chesaDeakebav.net Travis Loop ACB tloopfo),chesapeakebav.net Scott Phillips USGS swDhilli(a),usgs. gov Gary Shenk EPA/CBPO gshenkfo),chesapeakebav.net On the phone: Alana Hartman WV DEP ahartman(a),wvdep. org Jennifer Volk DEDNREC iennifer.volkfo),state.de.us Peter Freehafer NY DEC Dbfreeha(a>,gw.dec. state, nv.us Cassandra Ladino USGS ccladino(a),usgs. gov ------- |