1. Water Resources Technical Committee Chesapeake Bay Program Overview & Updates July 10, 2008 Tanya T. Spano

2. 9/13/07WRTC Business Meeting2 OVERVIEW  CBP – General Objectives & Timeline  Bay Models – Updates & Applications 2030 Land Use Model  Impairments & Nutrient/Sediment Loads 303(d) List of Impaired Waters Load Allocations Bay TMDL(s)  2030 Land User Model & Projections

3. 9/13/07WRTC Business Meeting3 CBP – General Objectives & Timeline Principles: 1.Shared Urgency to Restore the Bay 2.Clear Communication & Common Message 3.Focus & Accelerate Implementation 4.Engage the Public About the Implementation Process 5.Legal Obligations Will Be Met 6.Improving & Applying the Latest Science 7.Flexibility of Sub-allocations within the Major Basins 8.Keep Healthy Waters Healthy Finalize Bay TMDL - by May 2011

4. 9/13/07WRTC Business Meeting4 Bay TMDL – Help Implementation?  Strengthens legal defense of NPDES limits  Provides stability for allocations  Provides opportunity for needed adjustments in 2003 allocations  Direct public dialogue to promote implementation

5. 9/13/07WRTC Business Meeting5 Nutrient/Sediment Allocation Processes  2003 Process N&P caps to meet tributary & CB4 segment Decision Rules  Equitable distributions to tributaries & states  Left sub-allocation decisions & Tributary Strategy implementation up to states  Bay TMDL Process Reflect model updates/new data Need to reflect/integrate sediment loads/impacts Regulatory requirements limit discretion Desire to preserve flexibility/trading & promote implementation Is a UAA required?

6. 9/13/07WRTC Business Meeting6 Bay TMDL Schedule  Define Required Load Caps - 2008 For Bay For Tidal Tributaries For Nitrogen, Phosphorus & Sediment To achieve attainment based on latest 303(d) lists Evaluate various management scenarios  Climate Change & 2030 impacts – ‘Will Consider’ Determine ‘if’ need to adjust cap and/or allocations Assess if a Bay UAA is required  Agree on State/Tributary Allocations – 2009  Sub-Allocations to Sources – 2009-2010  Public Participation – Now through 2011  Issue Final Bay TMDL – May 2011

7. 9/13/07WRTC Business Meeting7 Bay Models – Updates & Applications  Models Airshed Sediment Sheds Watershed Model Water Quality Model  Hydrodynamic  Living Resources  Updates/New Data: Model elements/functions Input data BMP efficiencies Land use / land cover  2030 Land Use Model Derived from WSM & other ‘growth/projection’ models  TMDL & Allocation Applications WSM - STAC comments versus MD’s intentions WQM – All Forested Baseline, Factor of Safety, & Averaging Period Concerns

8. 9/13/07WRTC Business Meeting8 Impairments & Nutrient/Sediment Loads  303(d) List of Impaired Waters All derived from agreed upon Bay- specific water quality criteria and Designated Uses For all tidal states (including DE)  DC – EPA approval expected July 2008  MD – EPA approval expected August 2008 CB4 –How to Address less than 100% attainment under a TMDL?  VA – EPA approval expected September 2008

9. 9/13/07WRTC Business Meeting9 Impairments & Nutrient/Sediment Loads  Load Allocations Changes Required from 2003? UAA Needed? Decision Rules State Allocations vs. sub-allocations to sources  Bay TMDL(s) Margins of Safety – explicit vs. implicit Baseline ‘All Forested’ Scenario Regulatory Requirements for NPDES Permits – WWTP vs. MS4 Decisions will set precedence for EPA for a major TMDL Links to Tributary Strategies? Accelerate implementation?

10. 9/13/07WRTC Business Meeting10 2030 Land User Model & Projections  CBP issued preliminary county-level landuse/population projections COG staff provided COG region population data Population projections from states Developed current/future septic & sewered data  Ad Hoc Technical Steering Committee Paul DesJardin, Tanya Spano, Norm Goulet COG staff working with members to compare/verify against existing data & future projections Concerns raised with WWTP projections & BMP/land use concerns

11. 9/13/07WRTC Business Meeting11 2030 Land User Model & Projections  Next Steps Continue to review current data with COG members/agencies Evaluate against other existing projections Work through Ad Hoc SC to address critical regional issues/resolve major discrepancies Implement Hybrid approach for WTTP projections  Suggest hybrid approach to CBP Use most accurate information available from COG and its members Use CBP calculations/logic where accurate information does not exist  Provide formal comments – Summer/Fall 2008

12. 9/13/07WRTC Business Meeting12 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS Preliminary Comparisons Jurisdiction201020202030 CBPCOG% Diff CBPCOG% Diff CBPCOG% Diff Prince George’s County 91.47111.4 2 2297.70122.6726100.8 2 133.2832 Montgomer y County 97.17105.2 1 8103.5 9 116.2212108.5 6 125.6216 District of Columbia 61.93167.0 6 17069.04179.4116074.46187.33152

13. 9/13/07WRTC Business Meeting13 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS Preliminary Comparisons Jurisdiction201020202030 CBPCOG% Diff CBPCOG% Diff CBPCOG% Diff Fairfax County 121.69131.5 4 8137.14148.2 3 8143.02155.989 Loudoun County 27.8722.88-1837.9832.17-1542.9737.54-13

14. 9/13/07WRTC Business Meeting14 Wrap-Up  Information Questions?  Discuss Technical & Policy Issues after presentations  Consider various COG staff recommendations