Conference Call Summary Chesapeake Bay Program

Document Sample
Conference Call Summary Chesapeake Bay Program Powered By Docstoc
					                      CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
                  WATER QUALITY STEERING COMMITTEE
                       February 9, 2009 Conference Call

              SUMMARY OF DECISIONS, ACTIONS, AND ISSUES

Next Generation of the Revised Allocation Methodology
Bob Koroncai and Gary Shenk briefed Water Quality Steering Committee (WQSC)
members on responses to feedback at the November 2008 meeting on the proposed
allocation methodology and presented several recommended changes. See Attachment A
for details.

   Two ways that the 2003 allocation process could be improved upon would be to make
   it more geographically specific and to incorporate a measure of feasibility.
   Bob Koroncai reminded WQSC members that the Bay TMDL needs to be developed
   to achieve the states’ Chesapeake Bay water quality standards regulations. If these
   standards need to be revised then they need to be revised before the Bay TMDL is
   issued.
   Bob Koroncai asked Steering Committee members to consider the following relevant
   points (See Attachment A for more detailed explanations):
       o Point sources are generally more ‘treatable’ than nonpoint sources.
       o The allocation approach used in 2003 resulted in varied ‘level of effort’ when
           expressed as a percent of the E3 level of effort.
       o The Bay TMDL must be based on loadings needed to achieve the states’
           Chesapeake Bay state water quality standards.
   The general allocation process that is being recommended to the WQSC is described
   on page 5 of Attachment A. See the handout for details.
   Rich Eskin: We can no longer make allocations by state or major basin. It needs to be
   done by impaired segment since we need to develop TMDLs for each the individual
   impaired tidal Bay segment.
       o Bob Koroncai agreed that we will develop loading numbers for each of the
           impaired segments.
   Kenn Pattison: The definition of E3 has been changed since 2003. What is the
   definition for E3 now?
       o Rich Batiuk explained that Jeff Sweeney has done another model run for E3
           based on feedback from the Nutrient Subcommittee and its workgroups. This
           revised E3 follows the 2003 E3, but it builds in new BMPs that have been
           added since the 2003 timeframe.
   Bob Koroncai: The Maximum Extent Feasible scenario that is being developed and
   will help give the Principals’ Staff Committee (PSC) a sense of whether full meeting
   the states’ Chesapeake Bay water quality standards are an impossible stretch or just a
   difficult stretch.
   Beth McGee: What if the states’ Chesapeake Bay water quality standards cannot be
   amended before the TMDL is completed?
       o Bob Koroncai: MD can amend there water quality standards regulations
           within a several month timeframe. However, VA’s process takes much
        longer, on the order of 12-18 months. If VA cannot modify their water quality
        standards before the TMDL is completed, then the TMDL will need to be
        based on the existing states’ water quality standards.
Rich Eskin: Will we have sufficient time to review the sediment allocation process
and results?
    o Lewis Linker: Yes, the Sediment Workgroup, Modeling Subcommittee,
        Reevaluation Technical Workgroup, and Water Quality Steering Committee
        will be involved in this review process.
    o Rich Batiuk explained that the Steering Committee will be getting more
        information on the sediment load allocation process, SAV restoration acres
        attainment, and water clarity criteria attainment in the June – September 2009
        time period.
The recommended allocation process, focused on the nutrient allocations to be
provided to the PSC in April 2009, is described on pages 5-7 of Attachment A. See
the handout for details.
This process is similar to the process that was presented to the WQSC at its
November 2008, although some changes have been made. The previous draft version
of the allocation process included the recommendations that point source controls be
broken out from nonpoint source controls—that separation of point and nonpoint
loadings has been eliminated from the revised allocation process.
Bob Koroncai recommended that we will to allocate to the major tributary basins by
jurisdiction based on a combination of riverine transport and estuarine water quality
impact.
For April 2009, the draft allocations will be based on treatability because we do not
have enough information at this time to base them on feasibility.
Tanya Spano: Who will define what is treatable?
    o Bob Koroncai: Treatability will be indexed to the E3 scenario. We had a good
        definition of E3 in 2003, so we will build on this definition by including
        things such as the revised BMP efficiencies, advances in the tributary
        strategies, different land uses, etc. However, the basic principles will stay the
        same.
Tanya Spano: Saying that treatability is an index to E3 implies a lot of assumptions.
We need to explain who is making these assumptions and what these assumptions are.
Bob Koroncai asked each state what their feelings are on the proposed allocation
process:
    o Pennsylvania, Bob Yowell: Items #2 and #3 in the allocation process are
        reasonable (basing the allocations on anthropogenic load reductions from a No
        Action scenario and using a 2010 base year for the No Action scenario). Bob
        Yowell still had questions about item #5 (basing the first cut of the allocations
        on treatability, which would be indexed to E3). He said that he did not
        understand how this was going to be done. For example, E3 at all sewage
        treatment plants is not the same.
    o Pennsylvania, Kenn Pattison: This process is moving too fast. We could run
        into problems with this timeline. Rich Batiuk suggested that these concerns be
        shared with PA’s PSC member.




                                         2
       o New York: Ron Entringer said that he does not like the primary track that we
            are on and what we are trying to achieve by April.
       o West Virginia: Bill Brannon said that he has some concerns regarding equity.
            The process is more reasonable than it was in the past and he is waiting to see
            what happens in the long run.
       o Maryland: Rich Eskin said that he generally agrees with the comments made
            by Tanya Spano and Pennsylvania. Treatability needs to refer to various
            subcategories of classes (ex. different for small, mid, and large wastewater
            treatment plants). The important thing here is clarity and transparency. We
            need to document what the E3 and treatability scenarios really mean,
            otherwise we cannot evaluate them.
       o District of Columbia: Monir Chowdhury said that everything relies on the
            maximum feasible scenario. There needs to be transparency regarding this.
       o Virginia: Alan Pollock reminded the Steering Committee that the draft
            allocations will need to meet the water quality standards in all of the impaired
            segments.
       o Virginia, Russ Perkinson: The definitions of maximum extent feasible for
            each sector are going to be important. Looking at the overall proposal, there
            are pros and cons. Achievability is going to be a problem.
   Bob Koroncai summarized the Steering Committee members’ feelings on the
   proposed process. Based on comments during today’s discussion, it appears that
   whether or not this is a reasonable approach depends a lot on how comfortable the
   group is with the E3 scenario. Once EPA explains the E3 scenario better, the Water
   Quality Steering Committee will then be able to tell us whether or not they think that
   this is a reasonable approach.

ACTION: CBPO staff will provide Water Quality Steering Committee with detailed
documentation on the 2009 E3 scenario definition as well as a side by side comparison
with the E3 definition used in deriving the 2003 allocations.

Approach to Defining the Maximum Extent Feasible Implementation
Bob Koroncai, EPA, and Jessica Koenig, TetraTech, briefed Steering Committee
members on the proposed approach for defining maximum extent feasible
implementation. This approach is described in Attachment B.

   Maximum extent feasible (MEF) implementation must be defined by April 2009 for
   the different source sectors for nitrogen and phosphorus load reductions in the
   Chesapeake Bay watershed.
   TetraTech has been contracted by EPA to conduct a literature search to help define
   MEF.
   The proposed MEF scenarios include the following:
       o Existing voluntary/cost share/regulatory approach
       o Full public funding approach
       o Marketing-based approach
       o Expanded regulatory approach




                                             3
For each of these MEF scenarios, percent implementation will be estimated for each
of the major source sectors, including municipal point sources, urban and suburban
stormwater, air emissions, various agricultural activities, and septic systems.
Page 2 of Attachment B includes a matrix for the MEF scenario approaches. Since
this matrix was developed, the decision has been made to add a column for Limit of
Technology.
A draft version of TetraTech’s literature review report will be shared with the
Nutrient Subcommittee at their February 25th meeting.
The February 25th Nutrient Subcommittee meeting will be a one-day working session
to further hammer out details on the MEF definition and to frame out the source
sector specific input decks.
The Water Quality Steering Committee will be briefed on the progress that has been
made regarding the MEF scenario at their conference calls on March 9th and March
23rd as well as at their April 15th-16th meeting
It has been recommended that the MEF public funding approach be divided into two
columns: 50% funding and 100% funding.
Ron Entringer said that he does not see anything mentioned in this proposal about
consideration of economics and affordability.
    o Bob Koroncai agreed that the MEF scenario as proposed does not include
        consideration of affordability at this time due to time limitations. Affordability
        will need to be factored in at some point after May 2009.
Ron Entringer: Is the purpose of the MEF scenario just to inform the PSC?
    o Bob Koroncai: At this time, the MEF scenario’s principal function is to
        inform the WQSC and PSC on what level of implementation is possible and
        what is the resultant estimated Bay water quality response to that level of
        implementation.
Kenn Pattison: Will we have an opportunity to add BMPs (such as no till) to the list
in the MEF matrix?
    o Bob Koroncai: Yes, all the way through June 2010 when we put the draft
        TMDL out for formal public review.
Kenn Pattison: When do you reach the point where it is no longer feasible to do
agriculture due to regulations, so the land ends up being converted to urban?
    o Bob Koroncai: We will need to explore this more at some point. We are not
        sure how to handle this yet. We will need to address as we consider not only
        economic but social impacts.
Bob Yowell: Limit of technology is different than % participation. We might need to
apply both of these metrics.
Monir Chowdhury: Affordability will vary among jurisdictions, how will this be
taken into account?
    o Bob Koroncai: This is something that will need to be discussed after April
        2009.
    o Rich Batiuk: This will be a good question for the UAA Advisory Team. Once
        we have an initial definition of MEF, then we will be bringing in economic
        and social considerations afterwards with the UAA.
Rich Eskin suggested that TetraTech contact the MD Department of Agriculture. For
the voluntary scenario with unlimited money, there are situations where farmers still



                                          4
   refuse to participate in the program even with funding. The MD Department of
   Agriculture might be able to provide information on what a realistic level of coverage
   is under a voluntary program with unlimited funding.
   Russ Perkinson: The market-based MEF approach would probably be somewhere
   between the voluntary approach and the full public funding approach. Although this
   approach may be beneficial, is a separate evaluation worth the effort? The market-
   based MEF approach may be a category that could be eliminated for the time being.
   Chris Pomeroy: Promoting a stable regulatory environment for point sources is
   important. Where is this addressed?
       o Bob Koroncai: We are giving the states a lot of flexibility regarding who they
           are going to take these reductions from. The decisions on providing a stable
           regulatory environment for point sources are going to need to come
           principally from the states. EPA has clearly stated that it is the states
           responsibility to set the waste load allocations and make specific decisions on
           facility level allocations.
       o Chris Pomeroy said that a lot of the things in Attachment A and Attachment B
           may actually undermine this concept.
   Rich Batiuk pointed out that the four MEF approaches that are listed may not be stand
   alone scenarios. The final MEF scenario may draw from all of these.
   There was concern that the timeline does not provide us with sufficient time to look at
   this issue.
       o Bob Koroncai said that he thinks that we have time by April 2009 to have
           fairly credible draft nutrient allocations that meet the water quality standards,
           but we will not have time to include all of the desired information on MEF at
           that time. We have more time built into our Bay TMDL schedule after April
           2009 to further refine and review our existing MEF estimates.
   Bob Koroncai summarized the comments from today’s discussion:
       o The overall framework is basically ok, but the WQSC wants to see more
           details.
       o Additional practices should be included in the MEF matrix (air deposition,
           other nonpoint source practices).
       o Members are concerned about affordability. They think that there needs to be
           some economic component to this before we get to the June 2010 draft. This
           economic component will be part of the UAA.
       o The different MEF approaches need to be better defined.
       o The marketing-based MEF approach may not be worth spending a lot of time
           on at this time given very limited real data.

DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee approved the request to move
forward with further work on defining maximum extent feasible as proposed, factoring in
all the comments and recommendations raised by Steering Committee members.

ACTION: Water Quality Steering Committee members will Jessica Koenig, TetraTech,
with contact information for people that she may be able to contact regarding additional
data and literature values in support of defining MEF.




                                            5
Recommended Daily Load Bay TMDL Calculation
Due to time limitations, the decision was made to move this topic to a future Water
Quality Steering Committee conference call.

Updates to the WQSC November 2008 – May 2009 Schedule and Gameplan
Rich Batiuk briefed Steering Committee members on the updates to the Steering
Committee’s schedule and gameplan through May 2009. Attachment D(1) is the schedule
and Attachment D(2) is a list of the early February 2009 status updates.

   In Attachment D(2), the tasks that have been accomplished have been deleted. All
   that remains in the handout are the tasks that are still underway and the status of each.
   Scheduling issues that were brought to the WQSC’s attention included:
       o Completion of the Phase 5.2 Watershed Model final calibration is still
           scheduled for mid-March.
       o The schedule has been adjusted to move up the timing of the work on defining
           a maximum extent feasible implementation level.
    Kenn Pattison was concerned that there is not adequate time built into the schedule to
   review the model itself. There is only a narrow window between when calibration
   will be completed and when the model needs to be approved.
       o Lewis Linker explained that when the Phase 5.2 calibration is completed in
           mid-March, they will get the results out as soon as possible so that they can be
           reviewed. The Watershed Model will also be linked to the Water Quality
           Model as soon as it is approved. The model will receive a thorough review,
           but we will need to review it as we apply it. One advantage of this is that we
           will be able to look at the scenario results as we go through the review.
       o The Modeling Subcommittee is also being asked to review the Phase 5.2
           Watershed Model in parallel with the Water Quality Steering Committee.

DECISION: The Water Quality Steering Committee approved the recommended change
to the WQSC schedule through May 2009.

   The April 15-16 Water Quality Steering Committee meeting is going to be held in
   Pennsylvania. The meeting will start early on April 15th, so committee members may
   need to arrive the day before.


Next Steering Committee Conference Call
Date: Monday, February 23, 2009
Time: 1:30 – 3:30
Conference Call Phone Number: 866-299-3188 Conf Code: 5176284390

Topic: Presentation of Draft Options for the Basinwide Cap Loads
Leads: Lewis Linker, U.S. EPA CBPO

Topic: Geographic Isolation Scenarios: Findings and Allocation Implications
Leads: Lewis Linker, U.S. EPA CBPO



                                            6
Topic: Recommendation for Allocating to MS4s Given Anticipated Population Growth
Leads: Norm Goulet, Northern Virginia Regional Planning Commission, CBP Nutrient
Subcommittee Urban Stormwater Workgroup Chair

Topic: Presentation of Comparison of the 2010 Projections Recommended for Use in
Developing the Bay TMDL Allocations versus Those Used in Development of the 2003
Cap Load Allocation
Lead: Jeff Sweeney

Topic: Updates to the WQSC November 2008 – April 2009 Schedule and Gameplan
Lead: Rich Batiuk

Topic: Recommended Daily Load Bay TMDL Calculation
Lead: Jennifer Sincock


Participants
Bob Koroncai, Chair   EPA Region 3         koroncai.robert@epa.gov
Rich Batiuk           EPA CBPO             batiuk.richard@epa.gov
Sally Bradley         CRC/CBPO             sbradley@chesapeakebay.net
Bill Brannon          WV DEP               william.d.brannon@wv.gov
Pat Buckley           PA DEP               pbuckley@state.pa.us
Monir Chowdhury       DDOE                 monir.chowdhury@dc.gov
Lee Currey            MDE                  lcurrey@mde.state.md.us
Olivia Devereux       UMD/CBPO             devereux@umd.edu
Ron Entringer         NY DEC               raentrin@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Rich Eskin            MDE                  reskin@mde.state.md.us
Norm Goulet           NVRC                 ngoulet@novaregion.org
Ted Graham            MWCOG                tgraham@mwcog.org
Grant Gulibon         PA Builders Assoc.   ggulibon@pabuilders.org
Steve Hann            HRMM&L               shann@hrmml.com
Dave Hansen           Univ. of DE          djhansen@UDel.Edu
Carlton Haywood       ICPRB                chaywood@icprb.org
Dave Heicher          SRBC                 dheicher@srbc.net
Ruth Izraeli          EPA Region 2         izraeli.ruth@epa.gov
Bill Keeling          VA DCR               william.keeling@dcr.virginia.gov
Jessica Koenig        TetraTech            jessica.koenig@tetratech.com
Teresa Koon           WV DEP               teresa.m.koon@wv.gov
Lewis Linker          EPA CBPO             linker.lewis@epa.gov
Beth McGee            CBF                  bmcgee@cbf.org
Matt Monroe           WVDA                 mmonroe@ag.state.wv.us
Kenn Pattison         PA DEP               kpattison@state.pa.us
Russ Perkinson        VA DCR               russ.perkinson@dcr.virginia.gov
Alan Pollock          VA DEQ               aepollock@deq.virginia.gov
Chris Pomeroy         M/VAMWA              chris@aqualaw.com



                                           7
Marel Raub         CBC        mraub@chesbay.us
John Schneider     DE DNREC   john.schneider@state.de.us
Gary Shenk         EPA/CBPO   gshenk@chesapeakebay.net
Jennifer Sincock   EPA R3     sincock.jennifer@epa.gov
Peter Slack        PMAA       slack@municipalauthorities.org
Randy Sovic        WV DEP     Randolph.M.Sovic@wv.gov
Tanya Spano        MWCOG      tspano@mwcog.org
Jeff Sweeney       UMD/CBPO   jsweeney@chesapeakebay.net
Bob Yowell         PA DEP     ryowell@state.pa.us




                              8

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:5/16/2012
language:
pages:8