Region 3 Exhibit 15..23.150000.Pdf

Erl;i,/-tt Exhibit l5 SETTINGAND ALLOCATING THECHESAPEAKE BAY BASINNUTRIENTAND SEDIMENTLOADS The ColaborativeProcess, Technical Tools and InnovativeApproaches PRINCIPALAUTHORS Robert Koroncai Q.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agcncy Region III Philadelphia,PA Lewis Linker U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency ChesapeakeBay Progtam Offrce Annapolis,Maryland Jeff Sweeney Universityof Maryland ChesapeakeBay Program Annapolis,Maryland Richard Batiuk U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency ChesapeakeBay ProgramOffice Annapolis,Maryland U.5.Environmental Protection Agency Regionlll ChesapeakeBay Program Office Annapolis,Maryland DECEMBER2OO3 cha pter I Background For the pasttwenty years,the ChesapeakeBay Programpartners have been conmifted to achieving and maintaining water quality conditions necessaryto support living resource$throughout the ChesapeakeBay ecosystem.The 1983 ChesupeakeBay Agreementset the siage tbr the collaborative multi-state and federal partnership, and the 1987Chesapeake Bay Agreementset the first quantitativenutrient reduction goals (ChesapeakeExecutive Council 1983, 1987).With the signing of the Chesapeake 2000agteement (Chesapeake Executive Council 2000),the ChesapeakeBay Program partnerscommitted to: DeJiningthe water quality con.litionsnecessary to protect aquaricliving reaources and then assigning load reductions for nitrogen and phosphorus to each major lributary: arLd Using a processparallel to that establishedfor nutrients, deterrnining the sedimentload reductionsnecessary to achievethe wdter quality con- dilions that protecl aquatic living resources, and assigning load reductionsfor sedimentto eochmajor lributary. Through a six-state memorandum of understanding,the headwater states of Delaware,West Virginia andNew Yorkjoined Maryland,Virginia, Pennsylvania,the District of Columbia, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) and the ChesapeakeBay Commissionin committing to restoreChesapeake Bay and river water quality throughthe adoptionof new cap load allocationsfor nitrogen,phos- phorusand sediment(Chesapeake Bay WatershedPartners 2001). All the watershed partnersunderstood that these allocationsrepresented loading caps that must be achievedand maintained,even in the thce of increasinganthropogenic activities in thewatershed- Using the best scientific informationavailable, Chesapeake Bay Programpadners have agreedto nutrient and sedimentcap loading allocations.On March 21, 2003 and April 15, 2003, the ChesapeakeBay ProgramPrincipals' Staff Committeeand representativesof the headwaterstates convened to adoptthe nutrient and sediment cap load allocationsand submergedaquatic vegetation (SAV) restorationgoals for the ChesapeakeBay (AppendixA)- The cap loads,allocated by major hibutarybasin Lt'r.rpt{-'ri . Backqrcund and by statejurisdiction, will serveas a basisfor eachstate's tributary strategies that, whencompleted by April 2004,will describelocal implementationactions necessary to meetthe Crresapeake2000 nrstient and sedimentcap load allocationsby 2010. This documentdescribes the scientificand technicalinformation and policy agreements that formed the basis for the important,comprehensive agreements that the ChesapeakeBay Programpartners made with regard to cap load allocationsfor nitrogen,phosphorus and sediments,as well as new baywideand local SAV restora- tion goals. The assessmenttools and techniquesevolved significantly over the allocationdecision-making process, therefore, it shouldbe notedthat this document is basedon the most recentinformation and proceduresused in supportof the cap load allocationdecisions that were made. FUNDAMENTALSOF DEVEI.OPING CAP LOAD ALTOCATIONS Cap loadallocations can be definedas cumulative pollutant loadings for all point and non-pointsources established and assigned to differentfibutary basinswithin a larger watershedthat, when achieved,will allow the receivingwater body to attain the prescribedwater quality goals.With the acc€lerateddevelopment of total maximum daily loads (TMDL$ over the recent years,the developmentof loading caps has becomecommonplace, but the sizeand complexity ofthe ChesapeakeBay watershed has madeallocation ofthe nutrientand sedimentcap loadssimilarly complex. Typically, water quality goals are prescribed in stat€ water quality standards. I{owever,current statewater quality standardsaddressing nutrient- and sediment- related impairments for the ChesapeakeBay and its tidal fibutaries, which are based on nationalcriteria first publishedin the 1960sfor freshwatersystems, only address dissolvedoxygen. For this reason,the EPA,in direct consultationwith the watershed states,developed comprehensive, Chesapeake Bay regionalwater quality criteria for dissolvedoxygen, chlorophyll a and clarity, along with SAV restorationgoals for each segmentof the ChesapeakeBay and its tidal tributaries(U.S. EpA 2003a, 2003b).While at the time ofpublication of this documentthese criteria had not yet beenadopted into statewater quality standards,they were usedas the water quality basis for setting and allocating the nutrient and sediment cap loads for the Chesa- peakeBay watershed. To determinethe appropriatecap loads and allocate them to individuat tributary basins,the pollutantsources must be relatedto impactson water quality.It is important to quantify the loadingsfrom all significant sourcesand to track the fate and hansportofthose pollutantsfrom the sourceto the Bay's tidal waters.In the caseof nutrlentsand sediments,the fate and transportmechanisms can be quite complex. A complementarysuite of modelswas employedio simulatethe sources,tansport, fate and ultimate impact on tidal Bay water quality conditions of nutrient and sedimentloads. The airshedmodel was usedto track air sourcesfrom the 350,000- chaptor i - Backg()und square-mileChesapeake Bay airshedand the transportand depositionof atmos- phericnitrogen loads to the ChesapeakeBay watershedand directly to tidal surface waters.The watershedmodel trackedall sources-point, non-pointand air deposi- tion within the watershedand simulatedthe fate of thosepollutants as they were transportedthrough the free-flowingriver systemsofthe watershedand deliveredto the tidal Bay waters.The water quality model, which is actually a compilation of severalmodels, then simulatedthe water quality impactsof thosepollutants on the water quality of the ChesapeakeBay and its tidal tributaries. Knowing the water quality goals through the water quality criteria as applied within the refinedtidal-water designated uses and the reducedpollutrant loading effectson waterquality throughthe models,it waspossible to developdefensible, equitable cap load allocations.However, good sciencewas not enoughto derivethe cap load allocations.It was also importantto blend the scientificunderstanding with policy input to derive cap load allocationsthat not only could achievethe statedwater quality goals but also could gain considerablesupport from local shkeholdersultimately responsiblefor taking the actionsnecessary to reducenulrient and sediment loadings. Policy input to settingthe cap load allocationswas most importantin determiningan appropriatedistribution of the allowablepollutant loads by major tributarybasin and jurisdiction. 'Fair and equitable'werethe basic principlesused by the Chesapeake Bay Programpartners in allocatingthe cap loads.Such subjectivequalities do not readily lend themselvesto technically based solutions without significant policy directionon how to achievethis desiredresult. Once the policy directionwas established on distributing the cap loads'fairly and equitably', a technical construct supportingthese policy principleswas developed. KEY PLAYERSIN DEVELOPINGTHE ALLOCATIONS The ChesapeakeBay Programcarries out its restorationand protectionfunctions throughan extensivecommittee structure led by the original ChesapeakeBay agree- mcnt signatoriesof Pennsylvania,Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia,the EPA and the ChesapeakeBay Commission(Figure I-l). For the developmentof water quality criteria, refined tidal-waier designateduse and cap load allocations, more than500 individualsrepresenting state, federal, regional and local govemment agencies,academic institutions, businesses, conservation organizations, community watershedorganizations, many othernongovemmental organizations, as well as the headwaterstates of New York, WestVirginia and Delawarejoined as full partners. Point sourcerepresentatives and environmentalgroups also were well-represented on the committeesduring this effort.An overviewofthe rolesofeach groupand the interplay betweengroups is describedbelow and illustratedin figures I-1 ard I-2. A brief review of the primary groupsis providedbelow. WATERQUI\LIry TECHNICAL WORK6ROUP 'l l.risworkgroup consisted oftechnical staff and midlevel managersfiom the states, the EPA and stakeholdersfrom point source and environmental group interests and chzrfrt€rr i . gackgraLtnd I Ftsharlce$trcrlng I I Gommne. I Clra.epoata qcautlva Councl -l I urEons Aolflaory I f-r-'-'-"-..--- | | commh.c PdncheH stSt tftl commttte.Commltie. I [---]| | i [ w*, o..",,,, T""L,* I t--r"*rc"',.-n",.t-_li lwo*gruel ldvttory--.--''---------commmer |I riI I, -l T--[--*o"'"llg*.,".I F"d";ae;;;l I s"t",rdrb&1t.tt"t*t I r--------l i i_---c"tt"tt1_j lalmry Comnmac tmftenrntatlonConrmttt I J---r-l-____f___l . [-i ---------------- I ",8fflm* | tl I **a* | Subcommtn66s tl .------------.]-_itt: :-'_''_-____------__r_'_ '.. J---------' t il __ il tl I ll Monlrortnsll ll rodc. I ll - & ll Modclnsll ,"lJ I ll Ar.6.m.nrll ll Figure l-1. chesapeakeBay

Load more