Summary of Issues Chesapeake Bay Program Water Quality Steering Committee Meetings

1
Summary of Issues Chesapeake Bay Program Water
Quality Steering Committee Meetings
November 14, 2006
2
Issues Covered in the Meeting

• Issue 1, 7 8 Issuance of the Bay TMDL
• Issue 9 Who leads the public participation
  process?
• Issues 11 12 Regulated and unregulated TMDL
  loads simulated in the Chesapeake Bay Model and
  the planned allocation to sources
• Issue 23 Schedule for TMDL Development

3
Issue 1Issuance of the Bay TMDL
4
Issuance of the Bay TMDL - Overview

• Five Options
• Developed Individually by each State
• Developed Together Submitted Individually
• Developed by Virginia (or Bay States)
• Developed by EPA for all States
• Developed by the States and Submitted Jointly
• All Options States Working Together on TMDL
• EPAs Contractor Writes TMDL Report
• Only Requirement Approved Bay TMDL Established by
  May 1, 2010 (VA) or 2011 (EPA)

5
Issuance - Option 1 TMDL Developed individually
by Each State

• Advantages
• Flexibility to States in Composition
  Presentation of TMDL
• Demonstrates States Commitment to the Bay
• Disadvantages
• Legal Strength of Allocating Loads to Protect
  Downstream Criteria
• TMDL Contested in 7 States, 7 Different Opinions
  on TMDL
• Costs Associated 7 Defenses
• EPA Approves 7 TMDLs
• Goes Against Partnership Approach
• Appears States are Developing TMDL Alone

6
Issuance Option 2 TMDL developed Together but
Submitted Individually

• Advantages
• Flexibility Scheduling TMDL Activities (e.g.,
  public participation, submission and approval)
• Disadvantages
• Legal Strength of Allocating Loads to Protect
  Downstream Criteria
• Goes Against Bay Partnership Approach
• TMDL Contested in 7 States, 7 Different Opinions
  on TMDL
• Costs Associated 7 Defenses
• EPA will need to approve 7 documents

7
Issuance Option 3 TMDL Developed by Virginia
(or Bay States)

• Advantages
• One Document for Approval
• Streamline Public Participation Process (i.e.,
  meetings only required in Virginia
• Disadvantages
• Challenges Regarding VAs Authority in Upstream
  Waters
• Goes Against Bay Partnership Approach
• Stakeholders in Other States Limited Opportunity
  to Comment
• Negative Impact on Palatability of TMDL to
  Stakeholders

8
Issuance Option 4 TMDL Developed by EPA for
All States

• Advantages
• Strongest Against Legal Challenges Regarding
  Upstream and Downstream State Criteria
• Challenges in Federal Court Only
• One Opinion
• The Federal Record of Review Basis of Defense
• No Submission or Approval Process
• EPA Assist in Public Participation Process, State
  Lead
• Document Authored by one entity (EPA), Speak w
  One Voice
• Disadvantages
• Correspondence w Partnership Approach
• Comfort w Establishment of TMDL by Federal
  Government

9
Issuance Option 5 TMDL Developed by the States
and Submitted Jointly

• Advantages
• Applies Partnership Approach
• States Responsible for their Public Participation
  
• One Document for Approval
• Consistency in the TMDL report
• Demonstrates Commitment of all Bay States to WQ
  in Bay
• Disadvantages
• TMDL Contested in 7 States, 7 Different Opinions
  on TMDL
• Costs Associated 7 Defenses
• Coordination for Public Participation Difficult
  Logistically

10
Issuance Chosen Approach

• TMDL Developed by EPA for all States
• Strongest Option
• Easiest to Defend Protecting Downstream Criteria
• Subject to Federal Court Only
• Defended via Record of Decision
• One Decision
• Simplest Logistically

11
Issue 5 Who Leads the Public Participation
Process?
12
Who Leads the Public Participation Process?

• Four Options Lead Agency
• Each State in Charge of Own Public Outreach
• EPA Leads Public Outreach, State Representative
  Present at their State Meetings
• Public Outreach Led by each State EPA Region 3
  Assistance
• Virginia (Bay States) Leads Public Participation

13
Option 1 Each State Leads Own Public Outreach

• Advantages
• Easiest Logistically
• Stakeholders Commenting to Their State Agency
• Disadvantages
• Ensure Each States Public Outreach Coincides w
  TMDL Issuance
• States EPA not Speaking w One Voice may have
  Contradictions
• Duplication of Work, Each State Drafting
  Responses
• Goes Against Partnership Approach

14
Option 2 EPA in Charge of Public Outreach

• Advantages
• Logistically Simple
• Single Comment Response Period
• EPA Acts as Repository Comments Responds to All
  Comments (Except on State Exclusive Issues)
• Disadvantages
• Goes Against Partnership Approach
• EPA not as Experienced Working w Stakeholders as
  States
• Difficulty of EPA Regional Staff Coordinate
  Participate in Meetings
• EPA Viewed as Outsider

15
Option 3 Public Outreach Led by Each State w EPA
Regional Assistance

• Advantages
• Familiarity w Stakeholders in Charge of Process
• TMDL Workgroup Responds to Comments Consistency
  
• States Formulate Own Public Outreach, EPA and
  Contractor Attend Meetings Ensure Consistent
  Messages
• Coincides w TMDL Issued by EPA
• Disadvantages
• Multiple Jurisdictions Coordinating Outreach
• TMDL Workgroup Coordinating Responses, Might
  Extend Response Time

16
Option 4 Virginia (Bay States) in Charge of
Public Outreach

• Advantages
• Responsibility in Hands of One Agency, Simplifies
  Logistics Reduces Conflicting Messages
• Disadvantages
• Goes Against Partnership Approach
• VAs Lack of Experience Working w Other State
  Stakeholders
• Perception VA Dictating Actions in Upstream
  Waters
• Other States Stakeholders Excluded from Process?
• Not Consistent w Most TMDL Issuance Options

17
Public Outreach - Chosen Approach

• Public Outreach Run by States w EPA Assistance

18
The Amount of Outreach Efforts

• Options Number of Comment Periods
• Single Comment Period After Draft TMDL
• Multiple Comment Periods
• States Chooses Number of Comment Periods

19
Option 1 Single Comment Period after Draft

• Advantages
• Simplest Option
• One Comment and Response Period
• Complies with EPA regulations for Public Outreach
• Disadvantages
• Less Opportunity for Providing Data Information
  for Use in TMDL
• Less Time to Build Consensus w Public
• Fulfillment to Public Outreach Process in All
  States

20
Option 2 Multiple comment periods

• Advantages
• Allows Solicitation of Additional Data
  Information
• Public Sees Impact of Comments on TMDL Process
• Addressing Concerns Early Lowers TMDLs
  Susceptibility to Litigation?
• Disadvantages
• Logistics
• Cost and Time Associated w Public Outreach
• Multiple Sets of Comments
• Opening Portions of TMDL to Public Comment that
  Should Not Be
• First Meetings Need to be Established Soon
• Is it to Early for Acknowledgement?

21
Option 3 States choose number of comment periods

• Advantages
• Meets States EPA Requirements for Public
  Participation
• States Choose Option Most Comfortable With
• Logistically Between Other 2 Options
• Disadvantages
• Stakeholders Commenting in Another State?
• Impacts of Notice in One State on Another State
• One states Announcement Notifies Entire
  Watershed

22
Chosen Approach TBD

• TMDL Workgroup has not Come to Consensus on this
  Number of Outreach Periods

23
Issues 7 8Regulated and Unregulated TMDL
Loads Simulated in the Chesapeake Bay Model and
the Planned Allocation to Sources
24
Regulated and Unregulated TMDL Loads Simulated in
the Chesapeake Bay Model and Planned Allocation
to Sources - Overview

• Regulated sources that will be included in the
  wasteload allocation (WLA)
• Municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
  facilities
• Combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
• Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs)
• Municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)
• Construction sites
• Confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs)
• Non-regulated sources that will be included in
  the load allocation (LA)
• Agricultural animals
• Agricultural cropland and pasture
• Non-MS4 regulated stormwater runoff
• Septic systems
• Oceanic input of nutrients
• Oceanic input of sediment
• Upland above and below fall-line sediment sources
• Shoreline sediment sources

25
Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources -
Municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
facilities

• Simulation in the Phase 5 Watershed Model
• Model includes a database of about 815
  industrial, municipal and federal facilities
  discharging to the surface waters in the
  watershed
• Database includes monthly flow and monthly
  average concentrations for TN, NH3, NO2NO3, TON,
  TP, PO4, TOP, TSS, BOD and DO (for each facility
  outfall)
• Grouping of major and minor dischargers developed
  by each state. States encouraged to provide flow
  and concentration data for minor facilities
  (usually flow lt 0.4 MGD), but this information
  largely missing from the model. Best estimate is
  that 5 of total Chesapeake point source flow is
  missing from the Model
• River segments simulated as a completely mixed
  reactor and all of the point source loads in a
  reach are summed for each of the river segments
  and input as a daily load

26
Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources -
Municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
facilities

• Recommended Allocation Approach
• Municipal and industrial dischargers,
  particularly the major dischargers, may receive
  individual and unique WLAs within a Tributary
  Strategy. Major dischargers can be allocated at
  the river-segment scale (smallest segmentation
  scale).
• Minor dischargers must be allocated as a group of
  dischargers unless the point source database is
  upgraded to include an estimated record of these
  dischargers. The smallest grouping for minor
  dischargers not included in the model input data
  is at the state level, as flow and load data by
  river segment are not available.

27
Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources - CSOs

• Simulation in the Phase 5 Watershed Model
• An estimate of CSO loads from the District of
  Columbia (DC) is simulated in the Model
• No other CSO information available
• Recommended Allocation Approach
• Other than DC, CSO input information for the
  watershed is lacking, therefore an estimate of
  CSO loading to the watershed in not supportable

28
Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources - SSOs

• Simulation in the Phase 5 Watershed Model
• Information on SSOs in the watershed is
  completely lacking
• Recommended Allocation Approach
• Without any information on SSOs in the watershed,
  and estimate of SSO loading is not supportable

29
Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources MS4s

• Simulation in the Phase 5 Watershed Model
• Model lacks location, size and discharge
  characteristics to simulate MS4 dischargers
  explicitly
• MS4 Phase 1 and Phase 2 jurisdictions will
  represent MS4 area and assume the entire
  municipal region is in the MS4 area. With this
  information, the Model can simulate all developed
  land areas in the same manner, but post-process
  the developed land output data to estimate
  nutrient and sediment loads from the developed
  land in the MS4 areas.
• Recommended Allocation Approach
• If data are available on the area served by MS4s
  and the loads from MS4s at a land segment level
  then the Model can parse these loads from the
  generalized simulation of high intensity and low
  intensity developed land to separate WLA and LA
  loads of nutrients and sediment from developed
  (urban) land

30
Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources
Construction sites

• Simulation in the Phase 5 Watershed Model
• Bare-construction land use is a transitional land
  use as forest or agricultural land uses are
  converted to developed land. Assumed that
  bare-construction area is equal to 2.5 times the
  annual change in imperviousness (as described in
  Section 4 of the Phase 5 documentation)
• Bare-construction erosion rate 40
  tons/acre/year
• Five phases of construction over the project
  duration and only a portion of the site is
  exposed during each construction phase
• Annual average sediment yield estimated by
  assuming the project duration is 1 year and the
  40 tons/acre/year is adjusted based on the
  portion of the site that is exposed or disturbed
  at a specific time. Results in a rate of 24.4
  tons/acre/year for construction areas prior to
  implementation of erosion and sediment controls
• Stormwater Phase 2 Rule directs states to
  develop, implement and enforce a program to
  reduce pollutants in runoff from construction
  activities 1 acre. Estimated levels of
  effectiveness of the erosion and sediment
  controls for the different states are applied
  over the Model simulation period

31
Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources
Construction sites

• Recommended Allocation Approach
• The smallest unit of information on construction
  site loads is at the land-segment scale. This is
  the limit of Model quantification for this load.

32
Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources CAFOs

• Simulation in the Phase 5 Watershed Model
• CAFOs are not simulated explicitly in the Model
• Location and numbers of animal units associated
  with each CAFO is known
• Post-processing will allow the extraction of the
  nutrients from CAFO manure and will provide a
  first-order estimate of CAFO loads
• Recommended Allocation Approach
• The basis of the CAFO estimate is the simulation
  of the fate and transport of manure, which is
  calculated at the land-segment level. This is the
  smallest scale of spatial assessment available
  for CAFO loads with the Model.

33
Non-Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources
Agricultural animals

• Simulation in the Phase 5 Watershed Model
• Agricultural animals simulated in the Model as a
  manure source
• Numbers and types of agricultural animals
  tabulated from county Agricultural Census data
• Handling of manure in terms of frequency and type
  of collection, as well as the type and duration
  of storage, is taken into account
• A portion of the nitrogen in manure is
  volatilized as ammonia during collection, storage
  and field application. The ultimate fate of
  manure is volatilization, loss and export to the
  stream during handling and storage, or loss and
  export to the stream during and after field
  application
• Recommended Allocation Approach
• The smallest unit of information on agricultural
  animals is at the land-segment scale, which is
  roughly equivalent to counties. This is the limit
  of the Model quantification of the loads from
  agricultural animals.

34
Non-Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources
Agricultural cropland and pasture

• Simulation in the Phase 5 Watershed Model
• Cropland and pasture simulation based on
  conditions indicated in the county Agricultural
  Census
• Cropland information includes types of crops
  grown, crop rotations, timing of planting,
  harvest, and other field operations and estimated
  amounts of applied fertilizer and manure
• Pasture information includes stocking rate
  determined by the estimates of pasture land and
  number of pastured animals
• Recommended Allocation Approach
• The smallest unit of information on cropland and
  pasture is at the land-segment scale, which is
  roughly equivalent to counties. This is the limit
  of the Model quantification of the loads from
  cropland and pasture.

35
Non-Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources
Non-MS4 regulated stormwater runoff

• Simulation in the Phase 5 Watershed Model
• Nutrient and sediment loads from developed land
  simulated at the land-segment scale
• Recommended Allocation Approach
• The smallest unit of information on developed
  land is at the land-segment scale, which is
  roughly equivalent to counties. This is the limit
  of the Model quantification of loads from non-MS4
  regulated stromwater runoff.

36
Non-Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources
Septic systems

• Simulation in the Phase 5 Watershed Model
• Nutrient loads from septic systems based on US
  census data for waste disposal systems associated
  with households
• Septic systems simulated as a nitrate load
  discharged to the river segment. Phosphorus loads
  assumed to be entirely attenuated by septic
  systems
• 4 kg nitrate/person/year at the edge of the
  septic field based on assumptions of per capita
  nitrogen waste and standard attenuation of
  nitrogen in the septic systems
• Attenuation of 60 of the nitrate loads between
  the septic field and the edge of the river due to
  attenuation in 1) anaerobic saturated soils, 2)
  plant uptake and 3) low order streams before the
  simulated reach
• Nitrate loads from coastal plain septic systems
  delivered directly to the Bay because there is no
  simulation reach
• Recommended Allocation Approach
• Model estimate of septic system loads is a
  first-order estimate only and the finest spatial
  scale available is at the level of the
  land-segments

37
Non-Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources
Oceanic input of nutrients

• Simulation in the Phase 5 Watershed Model
• Long-term ocean currents flow along the coast
  adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay from north to
  south
• Upward pressures on coastal nutrient loads mostly
  due to growth in coastal watersheds
• Downward pressure on coastal nutrient loads may
  come from nutrient reductions required by coastal
  TMDLs, water quality controls on the Delaware
  River and coastal waters, and reduced atmospheric
  deposition of nitrogen to coastal waters
• Recommended Allocation Approach
• The potential for reduced nutrient loads in
  coastal waters will likely lead to improved water
  quality, making attainment of the water quality
  standards easier for all partners

38
Non-Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources
Oceanic input of sediment

• Simulation in the Phase 5 Watershed Model
• Input of sediment to the Chesapeake Bay from the
  ocean boundary is a natural geologic process that
  is entirely uncontrollable
• Recommended Allocation Approach
• Oceanic input of sediment loads at the mouth of
  the Chesapeake Bay reduces clarity in lower Bay
  shallow waters and will make achieving the
  clarity standard more difficult. May increase
  reductions needed in the WLAs and LAs in some
  designated use areas

39
Non-Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources
Upland above and below fall-line sediment sources

• Simulation in the Phase 5 Watershed Model
• Upland sediment loads come from the different
  land uses in the watershed
• Upland sediment loads also derived the scour of
  sediment loads from rivers and streams in the
  watershed, which are stored in low to high order
  streams with lag times of decades to centuries
• Sediment lag time also arises from mechanisms
  specific to the Chesapeake watershed, such as the
  development of water power sources created from
  relatively low head dams, which have subsequently
  filled in with sediment
• Recommended Allocation Approach
• The smallest unit of information from most land
  uses is at the land-segment scale, which is
  roughly equivalent to counties. This is the limit
  of the Model quantification of these sediment
  loads.

40
Non-Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources
Shore erosion sediment sources

• Simulation in the Phase 5 Watershed Model
• Shoreline erosion is a direct sediment load to
  shallow tidal waters
• Refined base estimate of shore erosion loads
  developed for the Water Quality and Sediment
  Transport Model (WQSTM)
• Management practices that are environmentally
  protective and reduce shore erosion loads have
  been proposed. Efficiencies for these and other
  shoreline management practices have been
  developed by the Bay Program
• Recommended Allocation Approach
• Shore erosion sediment loads are local in effect
  and unlikely to extend beyond the influence of
  the clarity designated use area, which is
  equivalent to a Chesapeake Bay monitoring segment
  (CB segment). The CB segment is the recommended
  level of assessment for shore erosion loads.

41
Non-Regulated Nutrient and Sediment Sources
Tidal resuspension of sediment sources

• Simulation in the Phase 5 Watershed Model
• Tidal resuspension of sediment simulated in the
  WQSTM with a module that relates wind speed and
  direction to the fetch, which translates wind
  energy into wave energy
• Wave resuspension of sediment will be simulated
  in shallow waters
• Management measures to reduce resuspension
  include SAV planting and the establishment of
  benthic filter-feeders. Efficiency of these
  management practices has yet to be explored by
  the Bay Program
• Recommended Allocation Approach
• Sediment loads from resuspension are local in
  effect and unlikely to extend beyond the
  influence of the clarity designated use area,
  which is equivalent to a CB segment. The CB
  segment is the recommended level of assessment
  for tidal resuspension loads.