CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM by liuhongmeiyes

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 9

									                      CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
                  WATER QUALITY STEERING COMMITTEE
                        March 9, 2009 Conference Call

              SUMMARY OF DECISIONS, ACTIONS, AND ISSUES

Recommendation for Source Sector Definitions for Maximum Extent Feasible
Bob Koroncai, EPA, and Jessica Koenig, Tetra Tech, briefed Steering Committee
members on the outcomes from the February 25th Nutrient Subcommittee meeting and
proposed next steps in developing a suite of Maximum Extent Feasible (MEF) scenarios.

Bob Koroncai went over Attachment A, which is a discussion paper that provides
background information on the MEF scenarios, the recommended approach, and the
proposed schedule. Bob recognized the outstanding work by the Nutrient Subcommittee
and its workgroup in their development of MEF values for the source sectors in a very
short period of time.

   Maximum extent feasible (MEF) is an effort to try to quantify the ‘do-ability’ of
   achieving various nutrient controls in the Chesapeake Bay. Do-ability can be
   expressed at several levels, including technical achievability, operational
   achievability, and financial achievability. The MEF analysis underway is only
   intended to address technical and operational achievability. The cost component of
   this issue will be addressed as part of the Use Attainability Assessment at a later date.
   According to EPA’s water quality standards regulation, there are only 6 factors that
   would allow for designated uses to be relaxed. Of these 6 factors, only the following
   3 are possibly applicable to the Chesapeake Bay:
       3) ‘Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of
           the use and cannot be remedied…’
       5) ‘Physical conditions related to the natural features of the waterbody,…,
           unrelated to water quality, preclude the attainment of aquatic life protection
           uses’
       6) ‘Controls more stringent than those required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the
           Act would result in substantial and widespread social and economic impact.’
   The MEF analysis is driven primarily to address factor 3 of the EPA regulations, as
   quoted above.
   MEF will be defined for multiple scenarios representing varied and escalating use of
   a range of implementation tools. The proposed MEF scenarios include a full public
   funding approach and an expanded regulatory approach.
   The EPA contractor (Tetra Tech) and the Nutrient Subcommittee were asked to come
   up with estimates of implementation under the two MEF approaches for each sector.
   The Nutrient Subcommittee’s February 25th meeting was a one-day working session
   to further hammer out the details of the MEF definition and to frame the source sector
   specific input decks. At this meeting, Tetra Tech and the Nutrient Subcommittee’s
   source sector workgroups presented the information that they had gathered thus far on
   the MEF scenarios.
   EPA will review the contractor and Nutrient Subcommittee information and make an
   initial estimate of MEF. These MEF determinations will then be modeled using the
   Chesapeake Bay Phase 5.2 watershed model for use in informing the PSC of the
   achievability of the water quality standard based allocations in April 2009.
   Rich Eskin: How is maximum public funding going to be defined? It seems like the
   only way to approach the MEF scenario would be from a technology-based approach;
   otherwise, you will need to make subjective political decisions.
   Bob Koroncai: Even with unlimited funding, not all farmers will participate. The
   MEF scenario looks at how much implementation can be achieved with unlimited
   funding being offered on a voluntary basis to farmers.
   Rich Eskin: It sounds like we are not really talking about what could be done with full
   public funding, but rather what the cultural, social, and economic barriers are to
   implementation. This was explored in the Corsica River project. In this project,
   funding was not the limitation. Farmers only signed up for 60-70% cover crop
   implementation on available cropland with full funding available—run up against
   cultural, not funding limitations. The question that we need to be asking is: What is
   the monetary premium that needs to be paid to overcome the cultural or business
   disadvantages of implementing a practice?
   Rich Eskin questioned whether situations where programmatic resources exceeded
   the demand by the implementors—is this how we applied the full public funding
   metric?
   Mark Dubin confirmed that the Agricultural Nutrient and Sediment Reduction
   Workgroup assumed unlimited resources for cost share and technical assistance in
   defining MEF for 100 percent public funding.

Jessica Koenig, Tetra Tech, presented the Steering Committee with a summary of the
information that has been gathered thus far on MEF based on both a extensive literature
review and the work of the Nutrient Subcommittee and its workgroup. Attachment B is a
compilation of the estimates for the definition of MEF from the Nutrient Subcommittee’s
source sector workgroups and from Tetra Tech’s literature search. The information for
each source sector is presented in tabular form and graphic form.

   The full draft report describing Tetra Tech’s literature review can be accessed at:
   http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/calendar/WQSC_03-09-
   09_Handout_8_9921.pdf.
   In addition to implementation level estimates for the public funding MEF scenario
   and the regulatory MEF scenario, Attachment B includes implementation levels for
   the existing condition scenario (2007), the E3 scenario, and the tributary strategy
   scenario. This information was provided by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office
   Modeling and Nutrient Teams.
   Tanya Spano pointed out that the current tributary strategy assumptions may need to
   be revised.
   Pat Buckley reminded the Steering Committee that it was previously determined that
   the E3 implementation levels were not achievable. The Nutrient Subcommittee’s
   Watershed Technical Workgroup had a 90% cutoff for implementation of some of the




                                           2
BMPs. Because of this, she is concerned that some of the MEF ranges for the
agricultural sector go all the way up to 100% implementation.
Rich Eskin: Would an acceptable definition of full public funding be “where
programmatic resources exceed demand”?
    o Bob Koroncai: Yes, that is an acceptable definition. Also, the assumption that
        we are operating under is that the resources would include the cost share
        money as well as the system that is needed to implement those practices.
The implementation numbers presented in Attachment B represent the information
that was presented at the February 25th Nutrient Subcommittee meeting. Since this
meeting, several of the Nutrient Subcommittee’s workgroups have been working to
further refine and revise these numbers.
Rich Batiuk provided an update on the progress that the Nutrient Subcommittee’s
workgroups have made since the February 25th Nutrient Subcommittee meeting.
    o Thanks to the leadership of workgroup chair Dave Kindig, the Agricultural
        Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Workgroup had a conference call on the
        morning of March 9th to further discuss MEF. They expect to have a full
        working definition of MEF by the end of the week based on input from all six
        states and a set of weighted basinwide MEF values for individual BMPs.
    o Thanks to the leadership of Tanya Spano, the Wastewater Treatment
        Workgroup had a conference call on March 6th to discuss MEF and response
        to feedback from the Nutrient Subcommittee. They are close to getting a good
        solid definition of MEF for significant/ non-significant municipal/industrial
        wastewater treatment dischargers and CSOs but they still have some work to
        do on developing MEF values for septic systems. They are currently working
        on getting the wastewater source sector’s definitions of MEF down on paper.
    o Thanks to the leadership of Norm Goulet, the Urban Stormwater Workgroup
        presented a solid definition of the current and forthcoming state stormwater
        regulatory program implementation levels at the February 25th NSC meeting.
        In order to get to the full MEF implementation level, EPA is planning on
        building off of the Urban Stormwater Workgroup’s work by applying the
        workgroup’s full implementation of existing/forthcoming state regulatory
        program levels to all of the urban lands and not just the MS4 regulated lands.
    o Thanks to the leadership of Jeff Halka, the Sediment Workgroup had a
        conference call on March 4th to discuss MEF. During this conference call, the
        workgroup took their previous projection of existing programs and ramped
        this up to what they consider to be MEF implementation levels for stream
        restoration and shoreline protection. They did this based on a recommendation
        from the Nutrient Subcommittee.
    o Thanks to the leadership of Lewis Linker, for the air sector, the Nutrient
        Subcommittee approved the use of the 2020 Maximum Feasible Air Scenario
        with the 2010 land use for use in the MEF scenario. At the February 25th
        Nutrient Subcommittee meeting, Subcommittee members also proposed ways
        to strengthen this scenario after the May 2009 Executive Council meeting.
Rich Batiuk recognized Dave Hansen for his leadership of the Nutrient Subcommittee
and chairing a very information, intensive meeting to a successful conclusion.




                                        3
Alan Pollock: Were state representatives involved in the development of the air
scenario that is going to be used to represent MEF?
     o Lewis Linker: No. This scenario was developed by consulting with Robin
         Dennis. It is a best guess looking forward from a national perspective.
Alan Pollock: It seems like there should be a clear difference, ‘daylight’ between the
estimated load reductions for E3 and MEF implementation levels.
     o Tanya Spano pointed out that in the wastewater sector, there are many cases in
         which tributary strategy, E3, and MEF levels are currently the same.
     o Bob Koroncai said that he would expect that E3 would be attainable for parts
         of some sectors. As a reminder, MEF should represent a broad scale
         application of the technology; however, E3 is literally everywhere.
Rich Eskin: The final decision on MEF is going to be informed by the numbers
presented in Attachment B, but it is not going to be dependant on them. In the end,
someone is going to have to use some best professional judgment to say what MEF is.
Is this correct?
     o Bob Koroncai. That is correct to some extent. EPA will use much of source
         sector MEF values developed by the workgroups and approved by the
         Nutrient Subcommittee. Where EPA determines MEF different from what
         have been approved by the Nutrient Subcommittee, EPA will clearly
         document what’s different and why. When we share the MEF approach with
         the Principals’ Staff Committee, we are planning on sharing all of the
         information that was used to determine MEF.
Rich Eskin: The documentation for the MEF approach should include a brief
explanation of the justification that was used in selecting the MEF value for each
practice.
Russ Perkinson pointed out that we need to pay attention to significant digits. For
example, for the wastewater sector the values should be expressed as 3.0 or 0.10, and
not 3 or 0.1 to prevent future confusion.
Ron Entringer: Doing this MEF assessment without looking at the financial
ramifications does not really tell us a lot. It is going to come down to what is
affordable.
     o Bob Koroncai agreed to mention to the Principals’ Staff Committee that the
         financial aspect will be an important component of this assessment, but that
         this information is not available yet.
     o Rich Batiuk: The MEF input deck now being developed will be needed to
         help determine the financial achievability.
Alan Pollock: Will a model run of the MEF scenario be presented at the April Water
Quality Steering Committee meeting?
     o Rich Batiuk: If the Steering Committee agrees that we should keep moving
         down the path that was laid out today, then the intent is to present this MEF
         scenario, as well as several other key scenarios, at the April Water Quality
         Steering Committee meeting.
Bob Yowell pointed out that the MEF scenario represents “maximum extent
feasible”, and not “maximum extent possible”. Possible is beyond feasible. Feasibility
means that we not only know how to do it, but that we can do it.




                                        4
   Bob Yowell: Time and science are two other variables that should be considered in
   feasibility.
   Bob Yowell: Another factor that is not incorporated into this MEF approach is
   education, such as in the agricultural sector.
       o Mark Dubin: The Agricultural Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Workgroup
           did take this into account for the agricultural BMPs. For the public funding
           MEF approach, technical assistance was taken into account.

ACTION: Water Quality Steering Committee members should send Bob Koroncai or
Jessica Koenig any additional comments on how Attachment B could be improved to
better present the compilation of MEF estimates.

DECISION: Water Quality Steering Committee members agreed that we should proceed
to move forward in the continued development of source sector definitions of maximum
extent feasible and the generation of a range of model simulated loads reflecting the
different approaches to defining maximum extent feasible as described during today’s
meeting.

Recommended Resolutions for Tidal Segments with Persistent Impairments
Rich Batiuk and Lewis Linker walked Steering Committee members through the
recommended resolutions addressing segment-specific water quality impairments
persisting across significant load reductions. They presented preliminary results from
model simulation evaluation of tidal wetland influence on dissolved oxygen in selected
tidal segments.

Rich Batiuk walked Steering Committee members through Attachment C. This handout
lists tidal segments with impairments at the 2003 cap loading levels (175 TN / 12.8 TP)
and it provides information on the possible source of each of the persistent impairments,
as well as the potential resolutions.

   Rich Batiuk: We are going to take these analyses as far as we can by the April Water
   Quality Steering Committee meeting and we are going to see if we can resolve any of
   the issues described in the handout.
   Tanya Spano: The table in Attachment C does not specify the type of impairment.
       o Rich Batiuk explained that the impairments in the table are only for dissolved
           oxygen in deep channel, deep water, and open water. A similar set of
           information on chlorophyll a attainment will be available at the April Water
           Quality Steering Committee meeting and information on clarity attainment
           will be available sometime after the May 2009 Executive Council meeting.
   Rich Eskin suggested that we begin working on determining what would qualify as a
   natural conditions exception for the water quality standards. It would be helpful if we
   could receive some guidance on this. Need to start the conversation with the states’
   water quality standards coordinators. Possible sources of persistent impairment that
   may come under this category include:
       o Segments with a better representation of the deeper channels and holes within
           the new Bay water quality/sediment transport model, and



                                            5
      o Segments with extensive surrounding tidal wetlands significantly influencing
          local dissolved oxygen concentrations.
   For segments in which impairments are due to the second reason mentioned above, it
   was suggested that the definition of these areas be changed to say that they are
   wetland areas.

Lewis Linker presented information on the tidal segments with persistent dissolved
oxygen impairments. His PowerPoint presentation is Attachment C(2).

   This presentation looked at the following 3 segments:
        o South River Mesohaline (extensive exposure of open waters directly with
           bottom sediments);
        o Pocomoke Mesohaline (extensive tidal wetlands effect); and
        o Pocomoke Tidal Fresh (combination of extensive exposure of open waters
           directly with bottom sediments and the extensive tidal wetlands effect).
   Lewis Linker said that we are not seeing any surprises in this assessment so far.
   When there is a situation where the surface waters (open waters) is in direct,
   extensive contact with bottom sediments, as it is in the South River Mesohaline
   segment, there will likely be occasions where there will be dissolved oxygen
   impairments.
   Extensive tidal wetlands can make a measurable contribution to oxygen demand.
   Lewis Linker posed the following question to the Steering Committee. As we go
   forward, do we want to think about changing procedures or changing standards?
   Different approaches would be needed if we were to change methodologies compared
   to if we were going to change standards. Lewis Linker asked Steering Committee
   members to think about this question. No decision is requested at this time.
   It was suggested that a narrative explanation of the information that Lewis Linker
   presented today be included in the documentation.
        o Lewis Linker agreed to include an explanation of this in the documentation.
   An update on this analysis will be presented at the April Water Quality Steering
   Committee meeting.

DECISION: Water Quality Steering Committee members agreed that we should proceed
forward with the recommended approaches to resolving model simulated persistent
impairments of water quality in selected segments.

Lee Currey, MDE, presented initial results from his graphical analysis of the incremental
loading scenarios and at what loadings different segments would come into attainment.
The analysis and the initial findings are described and presented graphically in
Attachment D.

   The analysis by MDE shows spatially under which incremental loading scenario each
   of the segments would come into attainment.
   For this analysis, they considered a segment to be in full attainment to be less than
   1% exceedence of the applicable dissolved oxygen criteria.
   The results of this analysis are presented on Page 2 of Attachment D.



                                            6
   Lee Currey pointed out for the open-water segments, some of the segment go in and
   out of attainment. We need to account for these circumstances as we continue our
   assessment of the problem segments.
   Steering Committee members said that they thought that this was a good approach for
   visually the extensive data generated by the nine incremental loading scenarios.
   It was suggested that this analysis be compared to the three most recent years of
   observed monitoring data analyzed for Bay dissolved oxygen criteria attainment.
   Bob Koroncai: It would be interesting to also include the MEF scenario in this
   analysis once the scenario is developed.

Review of Draft April 15-16 WQSC Meeting Agenda
Bob Koroncai walked Steering Committee members through the draft agenda for the
upcoming April 15th-16th Water Quality Steering Committee meeting. The draft agenda is
Attachment E.

   The Water Quality Steering Committee meeting will start at 8:30 am on April 15th
   and it will finish at 3:30 pm on April 16th. Due to the early starting time, members
   may need to arrive the day before the meeting, depending on where they are coming
   from.
   The purpose of this meeting is to prepare Water Quality Steering Committee
   recommendations for the Principals’ Staff Committee on:
       o Draft basin-wide loading caps for nitrogen, phosphorus, and upland sediment
           to achieve the existing dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll a water quality
           standards;
       o Draft major tributary basin by jurisdiction cap load allocations of the
           basinwide caps;
       o Initial estimate of the technological and operational feasibility (MEF) of
           achieving the basinwide cap loads; and
       o A communication strategy for explaining all the above.
   Bob Koroncai went over the specific agenda topics that will be discussed during this
   meeting. See Attachment E for details.
   Rich Eskin: At the May 2009 Executive Council meeting, one of the topics that will
   be discussed will be the new deadlines or target dates. Does the Water Quality
   Steering Committee need to be involved in preparing recommendations on this topic?
       o Bob Koroncai: A Milestones and Cleanup Deadline Action Team has been
           created under the Principals’ Staff Committee. This Action Team will come
           up with recommendations on this topic.
   Tanya Spano said that she is concerned about the disconnect between the
   development of new deadline and the development of the MEF scenario.
   Pat Buckley said that she is concerned that the Phase 5 model is not going to be used
   to inform the jurisdictions’ 2-year milestones or the new deadline.
   The meeting logistics for the April 15-16 Steering Committee meeting can be
   accessed at: http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/calendar.cfm?eventdetails=10097.




                                           7
Updates to the WQSC March-May 2009 Conference Call Schedule
Rich Batiuk briefed Steering Committee members on the proposed updates to the
Steering Committee’s March – May 2009 conference call schedule (Attachment F) as
well as the Steering Committee’s schedule and game plan through May 2009
(Attachment G).

   The Steering Committee’s next conference call is being rescheduled from March 23rd
   to March 30th.
   Ron Entringer: Are we going to discuss how to develop loading targets prior to the
   April Water Quality Steering Committee meeting?
       o Rich Batiuk: Yes, this will also be discussed at the March 30th and the April
           6th Water Quality Steering Committee conference calls.
   Pat Buckley pointed out that the scheduled March 30th Water Quality Steering
   Committee conference call conflicts with a Reevaluation Technical Workgroup
   conference call.
       o Rich Batiuk: Due to the tight timeframe, it has been suggested that the
           Reevaluation Technical Workgroup members join the Water Quality Steering
           Committee on this conference call.
   Prior to the April Steering Committee meeting, Alan Pollock said that it would be
   beneficial to have a summary of exactly what the Principals’ Staff Committee is
   expecting to be delivered at their April 20-21 retreat.

Next Steering Committee Conference Call
Date: Monday, March 30, 2009
Time: 1:30 – 3:30
Conference Call Number: (866) 299-3188, Conf. Code: 5176284390

Topic: Geographic Isolation Scenarios: Results and Allocation Implications
Leads: Lewis Linker / Jing Wu

Topic: Review of Phase 5.2 Delivery Ratios
Lead: Gary Shenk

Topic: Review of the Relative Impact Component of the Allocation Procedure
Leads: Bob Koroncai / Gary Shenk

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

Participants
Bob Koroncai, Chair   U.S. EPA Region 3      koroncai.robert@epa.gov
Rich Batiuk           U.S. EPA CBPO          batiuk.richard@epa.gov
Sally Bradley         CRC/CBPO               sbradley@chesapeakebay.net
Pat Buckley           PA DEP                 pbuckley@state.pa.us



                                           8
Arthur Butt        VA DEQ              ajbutt@deq.virginia.gov
Monir Chowdhury    DC DOE              monir.chowdhury@dc.gov
Lee Currey         MDE                 lcurrey@mde.state.md.us
Dinorah Dalmasy    MDE                 ddalmasy@mde.state.md.us
Mark Dubin         UMD/MAWP/CBP        mdubin@chesapeakebay.net
Ron Entringer      NY DEC              raentrin@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Rich Eskin         MDE                 reskin@mde.state.md.us
Norm Goulet        NVRC                ngoulet@novaregion.org
Steve Hann         HRMM&L              shann@hrmml.com
Ruth Izraeli       U.S. EPA Region 2   izraeli.ruth@epa.gov
Jessica Koenig     TetraTech           jessica.koenig@tetratech.com
Teresa Koon        WV DEP              teresa.m.koon@wv.gov
Lewis Linker       U.S. EPA CBPO       linker.lewis@epa.gov
Charles Martin     VA DEQ              chmartin@deq.virginia.gov
Hassan Mirsajadi   DE DNREC            hassan.mirsajadi@state.de.us
Beth McGee         CBF                 bmcgee@cbf.org
Bruce Michael      MD DNR              bmichael@dnr.state.md.us
Lisa Ochsenhirt    AquaLaw             lisa@aqualaw.com
Russ Perkinson     VA DCR              russ.perkinson@dcr.virginia.gov
Alan Pollock       VA DEQ              aepollock@deq.virginia.gov
Chris Pomeroy      AquaLaw             chris@aqualaw.com
Ed Reilly          NY DEC              exreilly@gw.dec.state.ny.us
John Schneider     DE DNREC            john.schneider@state.de.us
Mohsin Siddique    DC WASA             mohsin_siddique@dcwasa.com
Peter Slack        PMAA                slack@municipalauthorities.org
Tanya Spano        MWCOG               tspano@mwcog.org
Tom Thornton       MDE                 tthornton@mde.state.md.us
Jennifer Volk      DE DNREC            jennifer.volk@state.de.us
Bob Yowell         PA DEP              ryowell@state.pa.us




                                       9

								
To top