1. Target Load Method CBP Principals Staff Committee Meeting July 22, 2009 Gary Shenk U.S. EPA CBPO Presentation No. 2 Update on Methods Plan for Resolution

2. TN load 183.3 Review of Target Load Method from April

3. TN load 188.1 Review of Target Load Method from April

4. Suggested Refinements WQSC –Split the graph into multiple lines –Allow curved lines PSC –Bring costs into consideration

5. Cost Basis for Allocations Difficult to Implement –Data on costs not readily available for all practices –Cost are not linear with reductions –Optimization algorithms are highly complex What Scale? –Funding is not likely to follow the optimal path –Ignores local benefits –Optimization within state-basins

6. In past analysis, jurisdictions have chosen to reduce wastewater by a greater percentage, both in plans and in practice

7. 179.0 TN

8. 180.7 TN

9. 180.5 TN

10. 186.4 TN

11. Fraction Change in Target Load Between Min and Max Option Basins near the middle-right of the effectiveness scale do not change much through the options Basins near the extremes have more at stake. Nitrogen

12. Fraction Change in Target Load Between Min and Max Option Basins near the middle-right of the effectiveness scale do not change much through the options Basins near the extremes have more at stake. Phosphorus

13. How do we decide? Credible Phase 5.2 Scenarios (Sept 1) –No action –Everyone, Everything, Everywhere (E3) –Tributary Strategies –Enhanced Program Implementation Level –2002, 2008

14. 186.4 TN Status: Still under consideration more information is needed October PSC: Bring back 1 or 2 options If no agreement is reached, EPA will decide