Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-1 September 24, 2010

Appendix J

Key Chesapeake Bay TMDL Reference and Management Modeling Scenarios: Definitions 

and Descriptions

1985 Scenario

This scenario uses the estimated 1985 land uses, animal numbers, atmospheric deposition, and 

point source loads. This scenario estimates the highest loads of nutrients and sediment to the 

Bay in recent time (using a constant 1991-2000 hydrology). Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model 

simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J-2, J-4 

and J-6, respectively.

2009 Scenario

This scenario uses the estimated 2009 land uses, animal numbers, atmospheric deposition, and 

point source loads as well as the best management practices tracked and reported by the 

watershed jurisdictions through 2009. The 2009 year was chosen for simulation as it was the 

most recent year for which complete implementation data (BMPs, waster loads, etc.) available.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this 

scenario are listed in Tables J-2, J-4 and J-6, respectively.

Tributary Strategy Scenario

This scenario estimates the nutrient and sediment loads through model simulations of full 

implementation of the seven jurisdictions’ 2004-2005 tributary strategies throughout the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. This scenario included an accounting for all the tributary strategy 

BMPs on a 2010 land use, and the 2010 estimated permitted loads for all the significant and nonsignificant wastewater dischargers, as described in Table J-1. Adjustments to the jurisdictions’ 

tributary strategies to reflect changes in State laws or policies (e.g., permitting of significant 

wastewater discharge facilities) since development of the initial set of jurisdictional tributary 

strategies were also included in this scenario’s input decks. Atmospheric deposition inputs were 

from the Community Multi-scale Air Quality Model’s 12 km grid with an estimated 2010 

deposition and included simulations of the State Implementation Plans to reach the 2010 Air 

Quality Standards. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and 

sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J-2, J-4 and J-6, respectively.
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-2 September 24, 2010

Table J-1. Wastewater discharge facilities and combined sewer overflows (CSO) assumptions for 

the Tributary Strategy, Everything by Everyone Everywhere (E3), 1985 No Action, and the 2010 No 

Action scenarios.

Scoping Scenario Wastewater Input Deck Information

Trib Strategy (TS) E3 1985 No Action 2010 No Action

Latest state final or draft TS. 

LOT Everywhere

Tier 4 Level

No management action. 

Primary Treatment at the same 

level everywhere with 1985 

flows

No management action. 

Primary Treatment at the 

same level everywhere with 

TS flows

Sig 

Municipal 

Plants

Latest state final or draft TS. 

BOD=5 mg/l, DO=5 mg/l and 

TSS=5 mg/l 

TN=3 and TP=0.1

BOD=3 mg/l, DO=6 mg/l and 

TSS=5 mg/l 

TN=25 mg/l and TP =6 mg/l

BOD=200 mg/l, DO=4.5 mg/l 

and TSS=45 mg/l 

TN=25 mg/l and TP =6 mg/l

BOD=200 mg/l, DO=4.5 

mg/l and TSS=45 mg/l 

Sig 

Industrial 

Plants

Latest state final or draft TS. 

BOD=5 mg/l, DO=5 mg/l and 

TSS=5 mg/l 

TN=3 and TP=0.1 or TS level 

if less for industrial plants

BOD=3 mg/l, DO=6 mg/l and 

TSS=5 mg/l 

Highest Loads on record, or TS 

loads if greater

BOD=200 mg/l, DO=4.5 mg/l 

and TSS=45 mg/l

Highest Loads on record, or 

TS loads if greater

BOD=200 mg/l, DO=4.5 

mg/l and TSS=45 mg/l

Non-sig Plants

2006 data or newly submitted nonsig data.

BOD=30 mg/l, DO=4.5 mg/l and 

TSS=25 or 45 mg/l 

TN=8 and TP=2 or TS level if 

less for industrial plants

BOD =5 mg/l, DO=5 mg/l 

and TSS= 8 mg/l 

TN=25 mg/l and TP =6 mg/l

BOD=200 mg/l, DO=4.5 mg/l 

and TSS=45 mg/l 

TN=25 mg/l and TP =6 mg/l

BOD=200 mg/l, DO=4.5 

mg/l and TSS=45 mg/l 

TS flows for sig plants

2006 data or newly submitted nonsig data for non-sig plants Same as TS scenario 1985 Flows Same as TS scenario

Long Term Control Plan full 

Implementation

Long Term Control Plan full 

Implementation

TN=25 mg/l and TP =6 mg/l

BOD=200 mg/l, DO=4.5 mg/l 

and TSS=45 mg/l 

current base condition flow

TN=25 mg/l and TP =6 mg/l

BOD=200 mg/l, DO=4.5 

mg/l and TSS=45 mg/l 

current base condition flow

adding non-sig data and BOD, 

DO and TSS Defaults

adding non-sig data and 

BOD, DO and TSS Defaults New Scenario New Scenario

Scenario

Refinement from 

Phase 4.3 Scenarios

DC CSO

Note: Scenarios of TS and E3 adopted the same definitions as the related scenarios previously approved by the workgroup and run on the phase 4 model. 

Some refinements have been made into these scenarios as listed in the table. The 1985 No Action and 2010 No Action scenarios are new ones. E3 and 

2010 No Action use the flows from the TS scenario, in which most significant facilities use design flows. Please note that there was about 35% excess 

wastewater treatment capacity in total in 2006 based on the actuall flow data reported from 588 facilities in 2006. By current growth rate, there should still be 

a significant portion of excess capacity left by 2010. Therefore, the overall wastewater flows used in TS, E3 and 2010 No Action would be significantly 

greater than what should be by 2010. But for comparison purpose, we will not redefine the flows for these three scenarios and keep using what the TS 

defined. The excess capacities by 2010 could be considered as the reserved capacities under the facility loading caps. 

Concentration

Definition

Flow

1985 No-Action Scenario

This scenario estimates nutrient and sediment loads under the conditions of minimal to no 

pollution reduction controls on sources and nonpoint sources using a 1985 land use and 

population. Major widespread management practices such as nutrient management and 

conservation tillage were eliminated in this scenario. Wastewater treatment/discharging facilities 

were set at primary treatment with no phosphate detergent ban (Table J-1). Atmospheric 

deposition loads were set to 1985 levels of emissions and controls. Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J2, J-4 and J-6, respectively.
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-3 September 24, 2010

The No-Action scenario is used with the E3 scenario to define “controllable” loads, the 

difference between No-Action and E3 loads. No-Action and E3 scenario conditions can be 

determined for historic years (beginning 1985), current year, or projected future (through 2030) 

bu changing the underlying land use. All past practices, programs and treatment upgrades that 

currently exist are credited toward the needed reductions from the No-Action “baseline”.

No-Action Wastewater Treatment/Discharging Facilities

No-Action Significant municipal wastewater treatment facilities

o Flow = Tributary Strategy flows where most are at design flows

o Nitrogen effluent concentration = 18 mg TN/l

o Phosphorus effluent concentration = 6 mg TP/l

o BOD = 30 mg/l, DO = 4.5 mg/l and TSS = 15 mg/l

No-Action Significant industrial dischargers

o Flow = Tributary Strategy flows where most are at design flows

o Highest Loads on record or Tributary Strategy loads if greater

o BOD = 30 mg/l, DO = 4.5 mg/l and TSS = 15 mg/l

No-Action Non-significant municipal wastewater treatment facilities

o Flow = Tributary Strategy flows

o Nitrogen effluent concentration = 18 mg TN/l

o Phosphorus effluent concentration = 6 mg TP/l

o BOD = 30 mg/l, DO = 4.5 mg/l and TSS = 15 mg/l

No-Action Combined Sewer Overflows

Flow = current base condition flow

Nitrogen effluent concentration = 18 mg TN/l

Phosphorus effluent concentration = 6 mg TP/l

BOD = 200 mg/l, DO = 4.5 mg/l and TSS = 45 mg/l.

No-Action On-site Waste Treatment Systems

There are no nutrient and sediment control practices and programs in the No-Action scenario 

throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed for on-site waste treatment systems.

No-Action Atmospheric Deposition

The 2020 CMAQ Scenario is used for atmospheric deposition in both the E3 and No-Action 

scenarios in determining the “controllable” load. This approach allows for the agreed to Bay 

TMDL air reductions to be already considered in the nitrogen load reductions needed to achieve 

the Bay water quality standards.
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-4 September 24, 2010

No-Action Urban Practices

There are no nutrient and sediment control practices and programs in the No-Action scenario 

throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed for the urban sector.

No-Action Agricultural Practices

There are no nutrient and sediment control practices and programs in the No-Action scenario 

throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed for agricultural lands and operations.

No-Action Forestry Practices

There are no nutrient and sediment control practices and programs in the No-Action scenario 

throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed on forest lands where there could be

environmental impacts from timber harvesting and dirt & gravel roads.

2010 No-Action Scenario

This scenario estimates nutrient and sediment loads under the conditions of minimal to no 

pollution reduction controls on point sources and nonpoint sources using a 2010 land use and 

population. Major widespread management practices such as nutrient management and 

conservation tillage were eliminated in this scenario. Wastewater treatment facilities were set at 

of primary treatment with no phosphate detergent ban. Atmospheric deposition loads were set to 

1985 levels of emissions and controls. See the above description of the 1985 No Action Scenario 

for further details. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and 

sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J-2, J-4 and J-6, respectively.

Everyone, Everything, Everywhere (E3) Scenario

The E3 Scenario is an estimate of the application of management actions to the fullest possible 

extent. The E3 scenario is a “what-if” scenario of watershed conditions with theoretical 

maximum levels of managed controls on all pollutant load sources. There are no cost and few 

physical limitations to implementing BMPs for point and nonpoint sources in the E3 scenario. 

This scenario is used with the No-Action scenario to define “controllable” loads, the difference 

between No-Action and E3 loads. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, 

phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J-2, J-4 and J-6, respectively.

“Controllable” loads is a component of the methodology to allocate target loads needed to meet 

water quality standards to different regions of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Load allocations of target caps also take into consideration the relative impacts of load

reductions from regions throughout the watershed on water quality standards. Differences 

between No-Action and E3 scenario loads provide equity among regions of the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed in that assumptions of point source controls and nonpoint source practice and program 

implementation levels for each scenario are spatially universal. Differences among regions 

occur because of more “inherent” differences in, for example, animal and human populations, the 

number and types of point source facilities, agricultural land types and areas, urban land areas, 

atmospheric deposition, etc.

Generally, E3 implementation levels and their associated reductions in nutrients and
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-5 September 24, 2010

sediment could not be achieved for many practices, programs and control technologies when 

considering physical limitations and required participation levels. E3 includes most 

technologies, practices and programs that have been reported by jurisdictions as part of annual 

model assessments, Tributary Strategies, and Milestones.

For most non-point source BMPs, it was assumed that the load from every available acre of the 

relevant land area was being controlled by a suite of existing or innovative practices. In addition, 

management programs converted land uses from those with high yielding nutrient and sediment 

loads to those with lower. E3 does not include the entire suite of practices due to the goal of 

achieving maximum load reductions. The BMPs that are fully implemented have been estimated 

to produce greater reductions than alternative practices that could be applied to the same land 

base.

The current definition of E3 includes a greater number of types of practices than historic E3 

scenarios. E3 load reductions could be exceeded through greater effectiveness of practices and 

technologies in the future because of, for example, employment of new technologies and greater 

efforts on operation and maintenance. For point sources, nutrient control technologies are 

assumed to apply to all dischargers.

E3 Wastewater Discharging Facilities

E3 Significant municipal wastewater treatment facilities

o Flow = Tributary Strategy flows where most are at design flows

o Nitrogen effluent concentration = 3 mg TN/l

o Phosphorus effluent concentration = 0.1 mg TP/l

o BOD = 3 mg/l, DO = 6 mg/l and TSS = 5 mg/l

E3 Significant industrial dischargers

o Flow = Tributary Strategy flows where most are at design flows

o Nitrogen effluent concentration = 3 mg TN/l or Tributary Strategy concentration if less

o Phosphorus effluent concentration = 0.1 mg TP/l or Tributary Strategy concentration if 

less

o BOD = 3 mg/l, DO = 6 mg/l and TSS = 5 mg/l

E3 Non-significant municipal wastewater treatment facilities

o Flow = Design or 2006 flow if design is not available

o Nitrogen effluent concentration = 8 mg TN/l or Tributary Strategy concentration if less

o Phosphorus effluent concentration = 2 mg TP/l or Tributary Strategy concentration if less

o BOD = 5 mg/l, DO = 5 mg/l and TSS = 8 mg/l

E3 Non-significant industrial wastewater treatment facilities

o Applies the percentage of equivalent reduction from No-Action (18 mg/l TN, 3mg/l TP) 

to E3 (3 mg/l TN, 0.1 mg/l TP) to the 2010 load estimates. 

E3 Combined Sewer Overflows

100% overflow reduction through storage and treatment, separation or other practices. 

Storage and treatment is assumed in current model scenarios.

E3 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems

E3 Septic system connections

o 10% of septic systems connected to wastewater treatment facilities. 

E3 Septic denitrification and maintenance
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-6 September 24, 2010

o Remaining septic systems after connections employ denitrification technologies and are 

maintained through regular pumping to achieve a 55% TN load reduction at the edge-ofseptic-field. 

o Septic systems are maintained by a responsible management entity or in perpetuity 

through a maintenance contract. 

E3 Atmospheric Deposition

E3 atmospheric deposition uses the Bay Program’s air scenario that shows the maximum 

reductions in deposition – a projection to 2020 called the Maximum Feasible Scenario. 

The Chesapeake Bay Program’s Water Quality Goal Implementation Team decided to use 

the same atmospheric deposition for both the E3 and No-Action scenarios in the allocation 

methodology. 

The 2020 scenario represents incremental improvements and control options (beyond 2020 

CAIR) that might be available to states for application by 2020 to meet a more stringent 

ozone standard, stricter than 0.08 ppm – such as the proposed 0.070 ppm ozone standard of 

January 2010.

Emissions projections for the 2020 E3 scenario assume the following:

o National/regional and available State Implementation Plans (SIP) for NOx reductions –

with lower ozone season nested emission caps in OTC states; targeting use of maximum 

controls for coal fired power plants in or near non-attainment areas.

o Electric Generating Units (EGU): 

■ CAIR second phase in place, in coordination with earlier NOx SIP call. 

■ NOx Budget Trading Program (NBP).

■ Regional Haze Rule and guidelines for Best Available retrofit Technology (BART) 

for reducing regional haze. 

■ Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) in place.

o Non-EGU point sources: 

■ New supplemental controls, such as low NOx burners, plus increased control measure 

efficiencies on planned controls and step up of controls to maximum efficiency 

measures, e.g., replacing SNCRs (Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction) with SCRs 

(Selective Catalytic Reduction) control technology.

■ Solid Waste Rules – Hospital/Medical Waste Incinerator Regulations

o On-Road mobile sources: 

■ On-Road Light Duty Mobile Sources – Tier 2 vehicle emissions standards and the 

Gasoline Sulfur Program which affects SUV’s, pickups and vans which are subject to 

same national emission standards as cars. 

■ On-Road Heavy Duty Diesel Rule – Tier 4: New emission standards on diesel 

engines starting with the 2010 model year for NOx, plus increased penetration of 

diesel retrofits and continuous inspection and maintenance using remote onboard 

diagnostic systems. 

o Clean Air Non-Road Diesel Rule: 

■ Off-road diesel engine vehicle rule, reduced NOx emissions from marine vessels in 

coastal shipping lanes, and locomotive diesels (phased in by 2014) require controls on 

new engines.

■ Off-road large spark ignition engine rules affect recreational vehicles (marine and 

land based). 
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-7 September 24, 2010

o Area (nonpoint area) sources: switching to natural gas and low sulfur fuel.

E3 Agricultural Ammonia Emissions Reductions

o Assumes rapid incorporation of fertilizers in soils at the time of application, litter 

treatment, bio-filters on housing ventilation systems, and covers on animal waste storage 

or treatment facilities. 

o The overall benefit of reduced emissions from confined animal housing and waste storage 

as well as lower emissions from fertilized soils is a 15% reduction of ammonia 

deposition. 

E3 Urban Practices

E3 Forest conservation & urban growth reduction

o All projected loss of forest from development is retained or planted in forest.

E3 Riparian forest buffers on urban

o 10% of pervious riparian areas without natural vegetation (forests and wetlands) 

associated with urban lands are buffered as forest for each modeled hydrologic segment 

in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

o The area of un-buffered riparian land is determined using the best available data 1) 1:24K 

National Hydrography Dataset, and 2) 2001 land cover. 

E3 Tree planting on urban

o Forest conservation and urban riparian forest buffers account for tree plantings in the 

urban sector. 

E3 Stormwater Management

o Regions with karst topography (low permeability) and Coastal Plain Lowlands (high 

groundwater)

 50% of area – impervious cover reduction. 

 30% of area – filtering practices designed to reduce TN by 40%, TP by 60%, and 

SED by 80% from a pre-BMP condition. 

 20% of area – infiltration practices designed to reduce TN by 85%, TP by 85%, and 

SED by 95% from a pre-BMP condition. 

o Ultra-urban regions – defined as high- and medium-intensity land cover

 50% of area – impervious cover reductions, e.g. cisterns and collections systems to 

capture rainwater for reuse. 

 30% of area – filtering practices, e.g., sand filters, bio-retention, dry wells. 

 20% of area – infiltration practices, e.g., infiltration trenches and basins. 

o Other urban/suburban regions

 10% of area – impervious cover reduction. 

 30% of area – filtering practices, e.g. sand filters, bio-retention. 

 60% of area – infiltration practices. 

E3 Erosion & sediment controls

o Controls of the runoff from all bare-construction landuse areas are assumed to be at a 

level so that the construction loads are equal to the nutrient and sediment edge-of-stream 

loads from pervious urban under E3 conditions. 

E3 Nutrient management on urban

o All pervious urban acres are under nutrient management. 

E3 Controls on extractive (active and abandoned mines)
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-8 September 24, 2010

o Controls of the runoff from all extractive landuse areas are assumed to be to a degree so 

that the loads are equal to the nutrient and sediment edge-of-stream loads from pervious 

urban under E3 conditions. 

E3 Agricultural Practices

E3 Conservation tillage

o All row crops are conservation-tilled. 

E3 Enhanced nutrient management applications

o All cropland is under enhanced nutrient management – the hybrid of reduced application 

rate and decision agriculture. 

o Long-term, adaptive management approach with continuous improvement. 

E3 Riparian forest buffers on agriculture

o Riparian areas without natural vegetation (forests and wetlands) associated with 

agricultural lands are buffered as forest. 

o This equates to 15% of cropland and 10% of pasture land including the pasture stream 

corridor for each modeled hydrologic segment in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

o The area of un-buffered riparian land is determined using the best available data 1) 1:24K 

National Hydrography Dataset, and 2) 2001 land cover. 

o Current implementation of riparian grass buffers is considered converted to riparian 

forest buffers. 

E3 Wetland restoration

o 5% of available agricultural acres in crops and grazed for each modeled hydrologic 

segment in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

E3 Carbon sequestration / alternative crops

o 5% of the available row crop acres for each modeled hydrologic segment in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

o Program is replacement of row crops with long-term grasses that serve as a carbon bank.

E3 Agricultural land retirement

o Retirement of highly erodible land is considered in the E3 practices of riparian forest 

buffers, wetland restoration, and carbon sequestration practices which typically have 

equal or greater environmental benefits. 

E3 Tree planting on agriculture

o Tree planting is considered in the E3 practice of riparian forest buffers which typically 

have equal or greater environmental benefits. 

E3 Conservation Plans (non-nutrient management)

o Conservation Plans are fully implemented on all agricultural land (row crops, hay, alfalfa, 

and pasture).

E3 Cover crops and commodity cover crops

o Early-planting rye cover crops with drilled seeding on all relevant row crops. 

 The watershed-wide average of 81% of row crops are not associated with small-grain 

production is applied to each modeled hydrologic segment in the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed. 

o Early-planting wheat commodity cover crops with drilled seeding on remaining row 

crops (associated with small-grain production). 
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-9 September 24, 2010

 The watershed-wide average of 19% of row crops associated with small-grain 

production is applied to each modeled hydrologic segment in the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed. 

E3 Pasture Management 

o Stream Access Control with Fencing – Exclusion fencing is assumed to protect the 

stream corridor area designated as the degraded landuse and the area between the stream 

bank and fence is converted to (and is part of) the agricultural forest buffer determination. 

o Prescribed grazing – All upland pasture area is assumed to be under prescribed grazing.

o Dairy Precision Feeding and Forage Management (also listed under E3 Dairy Precision

Feeding) – All dairy heifers have reduced nutrient concentrations in excreted manure of 

TN = 24% and TP = 28% from a pre-feed management condition. 

 Management approaches may include increased productivity and use of on-farm grass 

forage. 

o Horse pasture management benefits are the same as those for fencing and prescribed 

grazing practices for livestock in general. 

E3 Animal waste management/runoff control

o Controls of runoff of manure nutrients from the production area of animal feeding 

operations is assumed to be at a level so that loads are equal to the nutrient and sediment 

edge-of-stream loads associated with hay that does not receive fertilizer applications. 

o Other practices typically associated with animal waste management and runoff control, 

that may affect runoff from the production area, are addressed separately in the E3 

scenario. These include Poultry and Swine Phytase, Dairy Precision Feeding, Manure 

Transport, and Ammonia Emissions Reductions. 

E3 Poultry phytase

o The phosphorus content in the manure of all poultry is reduced by 32% from a pre-feed 

management condition. 

E3 Swine phytase

o The phosphorus content in excreted manure of all swine is reduced from a pre-feed 

management condition by 17%. 

E3 Dairy Precision Feeding

o All dairy heifers have reduced nutrient concentrations in excreted manure of TN = 24% 

and TP = 28% from a pre-feed management condition. 

E3 Ammonia emissions reductions 

o Also under E3 Atmospheric Deposition – Agricultural Ammonia Emissions Reductions

o Assumes rapid incorporation of fertilizers in soils at the time of application, litter 

treatment, bio-filters on housing ventilation systems, and covers on animal waste storage 

or treatment facilities. 

o The overall benefit of reduced emissions from confined animal housing and waste storage 

as well as lower emissions from fertilized soils is a 15% reduction of ammonia 

deposition. 

E3 Nursery Management

o All nursery operations are managed through a number of practices to protect water 

quality including properly addressing nutrient management and incorporating erosion and 

sedimentation controls. 

o Controls are to a degree so that runoff from nursery areas is equal to the nutrient and 

sediment edge-of-stream loads from hay that does not receive fertilizer applications. 
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-10 September 24, 2010

E3 Forest Harvest Practices

E3 Forest harvesting practices

o Controls of runoff from the disturbed area of timber harvest operations is assumed to be 

at a level so that the nutrient and sediment loads are equal to edge-of-stream loads 

associated with the forest/woody landuse. 

o It’s assumed these BMPs, designed to minimize the environmental impacts from timber 

harvesting (such as road building and cutting/thinning operations), are properly installed 

on all harvested lands with no measurable increase in nutrient and sediment discharge.

All Forest with Current Air Scenario

This scenario uses an all forest land use and current estimated atmospheric deposition loads for 

the 1991 – 2000 period, and represents estimated loads with maximum reductions on the land 

including the elimination of fertilizer, point source, and manure loads. However, this scenario 

has loads greater than a pristine scenario which would have reduced input atmospheric 

deposition loads by about an order of magnitude. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated 

nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J-3, J-5 and J-7, 

respectively.

Base Calibration Scenario

The Base Calibration Scenario is used in data correction procedures and represents the 

calibration of the time series of land uses, loads and hydrology over the ten year simulation 

period used for TMDL scenarios. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, 

phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J-2, J-4 and J-6, respectively.

Allocation Scenario

The Allocation Scenario characterizes the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads necessary to 

achieve the Bay jurisdictions’ Chesapeake Bay water quality standards. This initial scenario will 

be ultimately replaced by WIPs for each State-basin. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model 

simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Table J-8.

190/12.7 Loading Scenario

This scenario of 190 million pounds nitrogen and 12.7 million pounds phosphorus delivered to 

the Bay is one of several scoping scenarios that were run to explore the region of nutrient loads 

that were close to achieving all water quality standards in the Chesapeake. Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed 

in Tables J-3, J-5 and J-7, respectively.

179/12 Loading Scenario

This scenario of 179 million pounds nitrogen and 12 million pounds phosphorus delivered to the 

Bay is one of several scoping scenarios that were run to explore the region of nutrient loads that 

were close to achieving all water quality standards in the Chesapeake. Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed 

in Tables J-3, J-5 and J-7, respectively.
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-11 September 24, 2010

170/11.3 Loading Scenario

This scenario of 170 million pounds nitrogen and 11 million pounds phosphorus delivered to the 

Bay is one of several scoping scenarios that were run to explore the region of nutrient loads that 

were close to achieving all water quality standards in the Chesapeake. Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed 

in Tables J-3, J-5 and J-7, respectively. 

James Level of Effort Potomac Scenario

This scenario was one of several scoping scenarios examining achievement of the James 

chlorophyll water quality standard. The 190/12.7 Loading Scenario was used as a base for this 

scenario and all basins but the James River basin had the nutrient loading of the 190/12.7 

Loading Scenario. In the James River basin, the nutrient loads were equivalent to the same level 

of effort as Virginia’s portion of the Potomac for the 190/12.7 Loading Scenario. Chesapeake 

Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are 

listed in Tables J-3, J-5 and J-7, respectively.

James 1⁄2 Level of Effort Potomac Scenario

This scenario was one of several scoping scenarios examining achievement of the James 

chlorophyll water quality standard. The 190/12.7 Loading Scenario was used as a base for this 

scenario and all basins but the James have the nutrient loading of the 190/12.7 Loading Scenario. 

In the James, the nutrient loads are equivalent to the level of effort half way between Virginia’s 

portion of the Potomac and the James for the 190/12 Loading Scenario. Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed 

in Tables J-3, J-5 and J-7, respectively.

Please note that in some cases the scenario loads reported in this Appendix may differ slightly 

from loads reported in other documentation, such as in the stoplight plots in Appendix M. This 

is because the scenario loads in this Appendix have the latest updated input load information but 

the stoplight plots in Appendix M contain scenarios that were dated and in some cases corrected 

with new information. For example, the scoping scenarios of the 190/12.7 Loading Scenario, 

179/12 Loading Scenario, and 170/11 Loading Scenario were developed with appropriate factors 

of an early Tributary Strategy Scenario which has been updated since the stoplight assessments

were run.
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-12 September 24, 2010

Table J-2. Delivered Total Nitrogen Loads (millions lbs/year) by State Basin and 

Scenario*

1985 Base 2009 2010 Tributary 2010 E3

Scenario Calibration Scenario No-Action Strategy Scenario

Eastern Shore(EAS)

DE 4.59 4.77 4.15 4.98 3.16 2.22

MD 16.55 16.35 12.42 17.70 9.84 7.18

PA 0.57 0.54 0.44 0.49 0.31 0.20

VA 2.15 2.20 1.90 2.41 1.03 0.79

James River Basin(JAM)

VA 42.47 36.82 30.41 49.11 27.51 16.45

WV 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

Potomac River Basin(POT)

DC 6.22 5.41 2.86 9.78 2.26 1.47

MD 29.56 26.96 18.77 32.96 16.10 11.42

PA 7.23 6.95 6.23 6.69 4.24 3.50

VA 30.14 28.36 20.22 33.53 16.38 13.31

WV 8.08 7.79 5.91 6.37 4.78 3.61

Rappahannock River Basin(RAP)

VA 8.92 8.35 6.98 9.33 5.62 4.39

Susquehanna River Basin(SUS)

MD 2.29 2.02 1.54 1.75 1.26 0.87

NY 16.87 15.02 10.95 11.03 9.56 6.39

PA 127.49 118.86 101.65 119.29 71.09 56.89

Western Shore(WES)

MD 27.00 17.75 14.00 36.64 9.84 5.99

PA 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01

Patuxent River Basin(PAT)

MD 4.16 3.86 3.09 6.01 2.78 2.03

York River Basin(YOR)

VA 7.60 7.37 6.36 8.49 5.09 3.83

Totals(millions lbs/year)

State DC 6.22 5.41 2.86 9.78 2.26 1.47

DE 4.59 4.77 4.15 4.98 3.16 2.22

MD 79.56 66.95 49.81 95.05 39.82 27.49

NY 16.87 15.02 10.95 11.03 9.56 6.39

PA 135.34 126.39 108.35 126.51 75.66 60.59

VA 91.27 83.10 65.88 102.86 55.65 38.78

WV 8.11 7.81 5.93 6.39 4.80 3.63

Basin EAS 23.85 23.85 18.91 25.58 14.34 10.39

JAM 42.49 36.84 30.44 49.12 27.53 16.47

POT 81.23 75.47 53.98 89.33 43.76 33.31

RAP 8.92 8.35 6.98 9.33 5.62 4.39

SUS 146.65 135.90 114.14 132.07 81.92 64.15

WES 27.04 17.79 14.03 36.68 9.85 6.00

PAT 4.16 3.86 3.09 6.01 2.78 2.03

YOR 7.60 7.37 6.36 8.49 5.09 3.83
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-13 September 24, 2010

Chesapeake Bay Total(millions lbs/year)

341.95 309.44 247.93 356.61 190.90 140.57
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-14 September 24, 2010

Table J-3. Delivered Total Nitrogen Loads (millions lbs/year) by State Basin and 

Scenario*

190/12.7 179/12 170/11.3 James L.O.E. James L.O.E. All Forest

Scenario Scenario Scenario 1/2 Potomac Potomac Scenario

Eastern Shore(EAS)

DE 3.14 2.85 2.57 3.14 3.14 0.58

MD 9.76 8.88 8.00 9.76 9.76 2.65

PA 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.31 0.31 0.09

VA 1.02 0.93 0.84 1.02 1.02 0.22

James River Basin(JAM)

VA 26.55 25.99 25.43 23.47 21.51 7.26

WV 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01

Potomac River Basin(POT)

DC 2.31 2.21 2.10 2.31 2.31 0.06

MD 16.48 15.72 14.96 16.48 16.48 4.66

PA 4.34 4.14 3.94 4.34 4.34 1.03

VA 16.77 16.00 15.23 16.77 16.77 5.22

WV 4.89 4.67 4.44 4.89 4.89 1.84

Rappahannock River Basin(RAP)

VA 5.87 5.54 5.22 5.87 5.87 2.20

Susquehanna River Basin(SUS)

MD 1.25 1.17 1.09 1.25 1.25 0.50

NY 9.44 8.85 8.27 9.44 9.44 2.88

PA 70.20 65.87 61.54 70.20 70.20 23.52

Western Shore(WES)

MD 9.45 9.08 8.71 9.45 9.45 2.29

PA 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00

Patuxent River Basin(PAT)

MD 2.77 2.63 2.49 2.77 2.77 0.88

York River Basin(YOR)

VA 5.37 5.10 4.83 5.37 5.37 1.85

Totals(millions lbs/year)

State DC 2.31 2.21 2.10 2.31 2.31 0.06

DE 3.14 2.85 2.57 3.14 3.14 0.58

MD 39.70 37.48 35.26 39.70 39.70 10.98

NY 9.44 8.85 8.27 9.44 9.44 2.88

PA 74.86 70.30 65.74 74.86 74.86 24.63

VA 55.58 53.56 51.54 52.51 50.55 16.74

WV 4.91 4.69 4.46 4.91 4.91 1.85

Basin EAS 14.23 12.94 11.66 14.23 14.23 3.54

JAM 26.57 26.01 25.45 23.49 21.53 7.27

POT 44.79 42.73 40.67 44.79 44.79 12.80

RAP 5.87 5.54 5.22 5.87 5.87 2.20

SUS 80.88 75.89 70.90 80.88 80.88 26.90

WES 9.46 9.09 8.72 9.46 9.46 2.30

PAT 2.77 2.63 2.49 2.77 2.77 0.88

YOR 5.37 5.10 4.83 5.37 5.37 1.85
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-15 September 24, 2010

Chesapeake Bay Total(millions lbs/year)

189.94 179.94 169.95 186.86 184.90 57.72
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-16 September 24, 2010

Table J-4. Delivered Total Phosphorus Loads (millions lbs/year) by State Basin and 

Scenario*

1985 Base 2009 2010 Tributary 2010 E3

Scenario Calibration Scenario No-Action Strategy Sceanrio

Eastern Shore(EAS)

DE 0.37 0.38 0.32 0.45 0.27 0.19

MD 1.70 1.59 1.17 2.00 1.04 0.83

PA 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01

VA 0.26 0.25 0.19 0.30 0.13 0.12

James River Basin(JAM)

VA 6.47 4.32 3.30 7.52 3.28 1.55

WV 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Potomac River Basin(POT)

DC 0.10 0.10 0.09 1.58 0.11 0.05

MD 1.48 1.24 1.01 3.56 1.03 0.63

PA 0.57 0.54 0.54 0.61 0.38 0.33

VA 2.18 2.09 1.96 4.97 1.70 0.98

WV 0.85 0.91 0.82 0.92 0.54 0.37

Rappahannock River Basin(RAP)

VA 1.29 1.24 1.08 1.65 0.94 0.60

Susquehanna River Basin(SUS)

MD 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.04

NY 1.07 0.98 0.80 0.97 0.65 0.43

PA 4.48 3.79 3.41 5.25 2.65 1.76

Western Shore(WES)

MD 1.62 0.87 0.77 3.63 0.68 0.25

PA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Patuxent River Basin(PAT)

MD 0.48 0.36 0.29 0.83 0.29 0.13

York River Basin(YOR)

VA 1.02 0.76 0.62 1.16 0.59 0.35

Totals(millions lbs/year)

State DC 0.10 0.10 0.09 1.58 0.11 0.05

DE 0.37 0.38 0.32 0.45 0.27 0.19

MD 5.37 4.13 3.31 10.10 3.10 1.88

NY 1.07 0.98 0.80 0.97 0.65 0.43

PA 5.07 4.36 3.97 5.89 3.04 2.10

VA 11.24 8.67 7.16 15.60 6.64 3.60

WV 0.86 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.55 0.38

Basin EAS 2.36 2.23 1.70 2.77 1.45 1.15

JAM 6.49 4.34 3.32 7.53 3.29 1.55

POT 5.19 4.90 4.41 11.64 3.76 2.36

RAP 1.29 1.24 1.08 1.65 0.94 0.60

SUS 5.64 4.84 4.27 6.29 3.36 2.24

WES 1.62 0.87 0.77 3.63 0.68 0.25

PAT 0.48 0.36 0.29 0.83 0.29 0.13
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-17 September 24, 2010

YOR 1.02 0.76 0.62 1.16 0.59 0.35

Chesapeake Bay Total(millions lbs/year)

24.10 19.54 16.47 35.51 14.36 8.63
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-18 September 24, 2010

Table J-5. Delivered Total Phosphorus Loads (millions lbs/year) by State Basin and 

Scenario*

190/12.7 179/12 170/11.3 James L.O.E. James L.O.E. All Forest

Scenario Scenario Scenario 1/2 Potomac Potomac Scenario

Eastern Shore(EAS)

DE 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.29 0.29 0.05

MD 1.10 1.02 0.94 1.10 1.10 0.22

PA 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00

VA 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.02

James River Basin(JAM)

VA 2.67 2.57 2.47 2.34 2.21 0.90

WV 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Potomac River Basin(POT)

DC 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.00

MD 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.25

PA 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.35 0.35 0.13

VA 1.56 1.48 1.39 1.56 1.56 0.40

WV 0.50 0.47 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.27

Rappahannock River Basin(RAP)

VA 0.91 0.85 0.78 0.91 0.91 0.30

Susquehanna River Basin(SUS)

MD 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.01

NY 0.56 0.53 0.51 0.56 0.56 0.31

PA 2.28 2.17 2.06 2.28 2.28 1.04

Western Shore(WES)

MD 0.45 0.42 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.15

PA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Patuxent River Basin(PAT)

MD 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.07

York River Basin(YOR)

VA 0.54 0.51 0.48 0.54 0.54 0.21

Totals(millions lbs/year)

State DC 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.00

DE 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.29 0.29 0.05

MD 2.75 2.58 2.41 2.75 2.75 0.71

NY 0.56 0.53 0.51 0.56 0.56 0.31

PA 2.64 2.52 2.39 2.64 2.64 1.17

VA 5.82 5.53 5.24 5.48 5.36 1.84

WV 0.51 0.48 0.45 0.51 0.51 0.28

Basin EAS 1.53 1.42 1.31 1.53 1.53 0.30

JAM 2.68 2.58 2.47 2.35 2.22 0.91

POT 3.46 3.27 3.09 3.46 3.46 1.06

RAP 0.91 0.85 0.78 0.91 0.91 0.30

SUS 2.89 2.75 2.62 2.89 2.89 1.36

WES 0.45 0.42 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.15

PAT 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.07

YOR 0.54 0.51 0.48 0.54 0.54 0.21
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-19 September 24, 2010

Chesapeake Bay Total(millions lbs/year)

12.67 12.00 11.33 12.33 12.20 4.36
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-20 September 24, 2010

Table J-6. Delivered Total Suspended Solids Loads (millions lbs/year) by State 

Basin and Scenario*

1985 Base 2009 2010 Tributary 2010 E3

Scenario Calibration Scenario No-Action Strategy Scenario

Eastern Shore(EAS)

DE 76.68 76.96 64.78 93.67 54.75 31.13

MD 260.20 243.41 185.80 294.98 156.99 126.05

PA 38.73 37.04 31.66 40.47 20.12 19.52

VA 22.16 20.21 16.43 21.99 10.30 8.83

James River Basin(JAM)

VA 1562.90 1473.21 1249.22 1506.04 1004.70 691.16

WV 29.45 28.81 28.52 28.59 18.21 14.62

Potomac River Basin(POT)

DC 22.54 29.86 32.00 100.95 10.31 4.12

MD 923.43 866.58 781.47 1036.36 665.62 471.50

PA 323.32 303.02 309.61 391.39 226.28 225.46

VA 1296.91 1204.65 1093.73 1346.84 823.32 607.61

WV 426.22 384.14 349.86 418.46 230.02 166.15

Rappahannock River Basin(RAP)

VA 890.56 840.71 754.38 852.79 688.86 634.32

Susquehanna River Basin(SUS)

MD 106.49 96.35 73.29 100.82 63.55 53.72

NY 400.98 336.60 337.27 344.28 310.74 212.05

PA 2718.95 2386.77 2286.38 2899.89 1756.33 1589.07

Western Shore(WES)

MD 311.80 266.86 239.00 325.15 204.99 105.10

PA 0.93 0.89 0.77 1.11 0.49 0.56

Patuxent River Basin(PAT)

MD 182.30 171.33 114.46 158.87 103.34 60.57

York River Basin(YOR)

VA 208.88 179.78 145.27 201.47 114.12 83.19

Totals(millions lbs/year)

State DC 22.54 29.86 32.00 100.95 10.31 4.12

DE 76.68 76.96 64.78 93.67 54.75 31.13

MD 1784.21 1644.53 1394.02 1916.18 1194.48 816.94

NY 400.98 336.60 337.27 344.28 310.74 212.05

PA 3081.93 2727.72 2628.41 3332.86 2003.23 1834.60

VA 3981.40 3718.57 3259.03 3929.11 2641.31 2025.11

WV 455.67 412.96 378.38 447.04 248.23 180.77

Basin EAS 397.76 377.62 298.67 451.11 242.17 185.53

JAM 1592.34 1502.02 1277.74 1534.62 1022.91 705.78

POT 2992.42 2788.26 2566.67 3293.99 1955.55 1474.84

RAP 890.56 840.71 754.38 852.79 688.86 634.32

SUS 3226.43 2819.72 2696.94 3345.00 2130.62 1854.84

WES 312.73 267.75 239.76 326.26 205.48 105.65

PAT 182.30 171.33 114.46 158.87 103.34 60.57
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-21 September 24, 2010

YOR 208.88 179.78 145.27 201.47 114.12 83.19

Chesapeake Bay Total(millions lbs/year)

9803.41 8947.19 8093.89 10164.10 6463.06 5104.72
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-22 September 24, 2010

Table J-7. Delivered Total Suspended Solids Loads (millions lbs/year) by State Basin 

and Scenario*

190/12.7 179/12 170/11.3 James L.O.E. James L.O.E. All Forest

Scenario Scenario Scenario 1/2 Potomac Potomac Scenario

Eastern Shore(EAS)

DE 59.35 53.25 47.15 59.35 59.35 43.17

MD 170.16 152.68 135.20 170.16 170.16 51.17

PA 21.81 19.57 17.33 21.81 21.81 7.11

VA 11.17 10.02 8.87 11.17 11.17 2.63

James River Basin(JAM)

VA 893.92 875.04 856.15 833.04 809.93 388.49

WV 16.20 15.86 15.52 15.10 14.68 11.68

Potomac River Basin(POT)

DC 9.73 9.36 9.00 9.73 9.73 2.44

MD 627.64 604.39 581.13 627.64 627.64 263.33

PA 213.37 205.46 197.56 213.37 213.37 99.70

VA 776.35 747.58 718.82 776.35 776.35 274.89

WV 216.90 208.86 200.83 216.90 216.90 120.38

Rappahannock River Basin(RAP)

VA 678.31 657.13 635.96 678.31 678.31 506.66

Susquehanna River Basin(SUS)

MD 59.65 58.51 57.37 59.65 59.65 24.85

NY 291.65 286.08 280.51 291.65 291.65 186.12

PA 1648.48 1616.97 1585.46 1648.48 1648.48 1044.88

Western Shore(WES)

MD 150.73 144.46 138.20 150.73 150.73 84.11

PA 0.36 0.35 0.33 0.36 0.36 0.06

Patuxent River Basin(PAT)

MD 81.84 78.75 75.67 81.84 81.84 64.89

York River Basin(YOR)

VA 105.98 101.56 97.13 105.98 105.98 61.29

Totals(millions lbs/year)

State DC 9.73 9.36 9.00 9.73 9.73 2.44

DE 59.35 53.25 47.15 59.35 59.35 43.17

MD 1090.01 1038.79 987.56 1090.01 1090.01 488.34

NY 291.65 286.08 280.51 291.65 291.65 186.12

PA 1884.03 1842.36 1800.68 1884.03 1884.03 1151.75

VA 2465.72 2391.33 2316.94 2404.84 2381.73 1233.96

WV 233.10 224.72 216.34 231.99 231.58 132.06

Basin EAS 262.48 235.52 208.55 262.48 262.48 104.08

JAM 910.12 890.90 871.67 848.14 824.61 400.16

POT 1843.98 1775.66 1707.35 1843.98 1843.98 760.74

RAP 678.31 657.13 635.96 678.31 678.31 506.66

SUS 1999.78 1961.56 1923.33 1999.78 1999.78 1255.85

WES 151.09 144.81 138.53 151.09 151.09 84.17

PAT 81.84 78.75 75.67 81.84 81.84 64.89

YOR 105.98 101.56 97.13 105.98 105.98 61.29
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-23 September 24, 2010

Chesapeake Bay Total(million lbs/year)

6033.58 5845.89 5658.19 5971.60 5948.07 3237.84
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-24 September 24, 2010

Table J-8. Delivered Total Allocation Scenario Loads 

(lbs/year) by State Basin**

Allocation Allocation Allocation

(Nitrogen) (Phosphorus) (TSS) (range)

Eastern Shore(EAS)

DE 2.95 0.26 58-64

MD 9.71 1.09 166-182

PA 0.28 0.01 21-23

VA 1.21 0.16 11-12

James River Basin(JAM)

VA 23.5 2.3 837-920

WV 0.02 0.01 15-17

Potomac River Basin(POT)

DC 2.32 0.12 10-11

MD 15.70 0.90 654-719

PA 4.72 0.42 221-243

VA 17.46 1.47 810-891

WV 4.67 0.74 226-248

Rappahannock River Basin(RAP)

VA 5.84 0.90 681-750

Susquehanna River Basin(SUS)

MD 1.08 0.05 60-66

NY 8.23 0.52 293-322

PA 71.74 2.31 1660-1826

Western Shore(WES)

MD 9.74 0.46 155-170

PA 0.02 0.00 0.37-0.41

Patuxent River Basin(PAT)

MD 2.85 0.21 82-90

York River Basin(YOR)

VA 5.41 0.54 107-118

Totals(millions lbs/year)

State DC 2.3 0.1 10-11

DE 3.0 0.3 58-64

MD 39.1 2.7 1,116-1,228

NY 8.2 0.5 293-322

PA 76.8 2.7 1,903-2,093

VA 53.4 5.4 2,446-2,691

WV 4.7 0.7 241-265

Basin EAS 14.2 1.5 256 -281

JAM 23.5 2.4 852-937

POT 44.9 3.7 1,920-2,113

RAP 5.8 0.9 681-750

SUS 81.1 2.9 2,013-2,214

WES 9.8 0.5 155-171

PAT 2.8 0.2 82-90
Draft Appendix J – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

J-25 September 24, 2010

YOR 5.4 0.5 107-118

Bay Total(millions lbs/yr)

187 13 6,066-6,673

* Allocation loads as first distributed in EPA letters to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed States on 

July 1, 2010 and August 13, 2010.